By Carl Franzen, AOL
The Discovery Channel abruptly entered headlines Wednesday afternoon for an awful reason: a hostage crisis at the network’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., involving an armed gunman, who the Web quickly identified as James Jay Lee, 40, of San Diego (hat tip: The Business Insider). The latest report is that the suspect has now taken several hostages and is potentially strapped with explosives. As the situation continues to unfold, Surge Desk lists what is known about Lee so far.
1. He Wrote A Lengthy, Rambling Manifesto
In the document, Lee accused humans of being the “most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around.” It was posted at his website, www.savetheplanetprotest.com, which has crashed because of server overload. It can still be accessed via Google Cache.
2. He’s Been Arrested Outside Discovery Channel HQ Before
In early 2008, Lee was arrested by Montgomery County Police on charges of littering and disorderly conduct for throwing money to attract a crowd outside the channel’s headquarters, DCist reports. The blog also noted that “Lee appears to have spent thousands of dollars in advertising his protest plans in publications such as the Express,” a free D.C.-area newspaper, “and hiring homeless people to beef up his presence.”
3. He Went to Extraordinary Lengths to Protest the Channel
Elaborating on the DCist’s claims that Lee spent significant money to stage bizarre protests in front of the network, the Maryland County Newspapers Online Gazette reported back in 2008 that:
Lee was arrested with about $21,000 in cash in the duffel bag he had with him at the protest, Meng testified. Johnson told Lee that he would get his bag of money back. Lee said he had sold several inherited properties in Maui, Hawaii, where he lived prior to moving to San Diego, to pay for the protest, including about $30,000 for full-page advertisements in newspapers. Lee said he had one property left, worth about $200,000, and had plans to give it away in a ‘’save the planet contest.”
Here’s video footage of Lee’s “money toss” back in 2008, via the Village Voice:
4. He Was Allegedly Influenced by Al Gore’s Film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
Fox News anchor Shep Smith reported this afternoon that Lee experienced an “awakening” after seeing the former vice president’s film about global warming.
5. He Was Sentenced to a Mental Institution
...For his previous Discovery Channel protest stunts, but never served time, instead being granted probation after 14 days in jail, TMZ reports
See more here. Read another take on the mainstream media discomfort reporting on enviromilitants.
By Paul Wornham, Environment Policy Examiner
It’s not been easy being green since the revelations of Climategate and mounting evidence that the science behind man’s influence on climate change is far from accurate, let alone settled. No wonder then that many greens chose to vent their frustration at skeptics and blame their ideological opponents for their troubles.
In the past decade, leaders of the global warming movement have won international fame and acclaim, including Nobel prizes and Oscars. They have been feted by celebrities and world leaders alike as a supportive press looked on and wrote glowing tomes about their wisdom and importance. Politicians and businesses were cowed into submission by the mighty green machine and eagerly adorned themselves with a green mantle to appeal to voters and consumers.
Despite this support and for no want of funding, time and again the green agenda stumbled and failed to achieve action. Despite regular and desperate cries of alarm that the conference du jour represented mankind’s ‘last hope’, nothing meaningful happens. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, but few industrialized western nations have come close to meeting their emission reduction targets. Since Kyoto there have been significant failures in Bali, Copenhagen, Bonn and next up is Cancun. There is no reason to suspect that the outcome will be different there.
The green movement is a conglomerate of many disparate causes, but one thing most agree on is that skeptics are to blame for any failure. According to greens, these ‘fringe’ people who oppose the theory that man influences climate are powerful enough to stop the entire world from taking action. In fact, this is just a lazy excuse to absolve themselves of blame for their own incompetence and ineffectiveness.
In the United States, Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress since 2008 with outright majorities, yet the ‘vital’ climate bill failed to pass. Democrats blame Republicans, but had the Democrats had the courage of their political convictions they could have passed any legislation they pleased, just as they did with health care reform. The climate bill failed because Democrats needed the political cover of a bipartisan vote and when they failed to get it, they simply walked away and in the process demonstrated that alarmist talk about global doom if the bill failed was so much hot air.
Al Gore this week blogged about the Koch brothers who have funded right-leaning causes to the tune of $100 million. The inference is that the Koch’s blocked climate change legislation by funding skeptics. Yet Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection have outspent the Koch’’s by a factor of 3 to 1. If it was just a question of money, Gore and his followers would have won a long time ago, so why haven’t they?
In large part, Gore must blame his own conspicuous consumption. Ordinary people looked at his mansions, his boat and the globe-trotting in private planes and limos and wondered how he could be so extravagant if there truly were a ‘climate crisis.’ Greens may blame skeptics for pointing out Gore’s hypocrisy, but it was his own decision to not lead by example and leave himself open to criticism.
A common argument against skeptics is that they are ‘flat-earthers’, the people who denied the Earth was round. This is a flawed view; the fact is it is the other way around. Those who believe in mans affect on global temperatures today are the ones who would think the Earth flat, for they are the followers of the popular consensus. It was skeptics that stood against the perceived wisdom of the day to teach the world that the ground they stood on was a sphere, a reminder that skeptics are vital to progress.
The inconvenient truth is that greens have failed to convince the world that man’s activity affects climate. They have tried bullying and emotional blackmail without success. It’s easy to blame those who disagree with them, but the failure to make progress on an issue they claim vital to man’s survival is entirely theirs.
Greens outspent skeptics, they had the ear of the political class, effectively demonized and even silenced opponents and still it was not enough to convince the world that anything was wrong with the weather. It’s hard to think of any movement in history that enjoyed the funding, support and momentum that the greens once had and yet achieved so little.
Now the momentum is gone, shattered by the revelations that climate science is little more than guesswork and bad statistical analysis. Celebrities are moving on to other, more fashionable causes and soon the only people left to rail against skeptics will be the ones with reputations or fortunes so heavily vested in their global warming theory that they can never retreat.
It’s not much of an end for ‘the greatest scam in history’, but it is the end. See post and comments here.
Alan Broone
BANGOR - In the year 2050, people will shake their heads in amazement when they read in history books that, back in 2010, some people thought mankind could “save the planet” by carbon-restricting legislation.
A generation from now, people will all see how we today were misled by scientists and journalists who pursued an agenda. It ended up by starving prosperous countries of needed energy supplies. A whole generation suffered unnecessarily from a sort of mass hysteria.
Science has been corrupted. That’s nothing new, but perhaps never before has it happened on the present scale. The National Academy of Sciences, until recently a respected congregation of the nation’s best minds, has published in a recent Proceedings a “blacklist” of climate researchers who have doubts about, or disagree with, the majority who believe that humankind is responsible for the recent warming of our planet.
This publication strives to diminish the reputations and credentials of “skeptics” or “deniers.” How shameful. Some believe this is a desperate attempt to counteract the growing doubt regarding “global warming,” now dubbed “anthropogenic climate change.” Can such an official act of defamation exist in the scientific establishment today? Unfortunately, yes.
This comes on the heels of several months of cascading revelations regarding data-doctoring and destruction, peer-review subversion, evasion of freedom of information requests, and outright fabrications perpetrated by the leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who crafted their reports on which many of our politicians base their support of carbon-restricting legislation (see Climategate, Amazongate, Himalayagate, etc.).
Little of this has been reported in our media. Recently the main actors in “Climategate” have been “cleared” of any wrongdoing in pathetic whitewashes of their actions.
Imagine an official review that didn’t go into the accuracy of the scientific findings, or in which none of the “doubters” was interviewed. Ah, but millions in research grants were at stake. Are you surprised?
There is an agenda, set up decades ago by the United Nations, with a mission to convict the Western World of despoiling the planet. The plan was and remains that of engineering a redistribution of wealth to poorer countries, while bringing ever more power and control to central governments.
What better way than to indict our “excessive” production of CO2, a minor greenhouse gas that is necessary for all life on Earth? This was demonstrated dramatically in Copenhagen last December. There was outrage in the African delegations when carbon-restricting mandates on developed nations failed adoption.
Be reminded that the global mean temperature has increased only 0.7 degrees C in the last century, which many believe is part of a natural cycle. We have historical evidence, long before CO2 levels rose, of the Roman optimum (warm), Dark Ages (cool), the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” ( approximately from the mid-15th to mid-19th centuries). And it’s noteworthy that higher CO2 levels have always followed temperature increases.
One of the most powerful criticisms is that while the truth of a scientific postulate is judged by observed fact in the real world, many of the alarmists’ predictions are derived from computerized models which may share false premises (and desired outcomes).
Apocalyptic scenarios may garner more public support for large governmental research grants than assurances that the world and its complex weather systems will somehow get along without help or hindrance from us - as they always have.
We learn about those who insist that something must be done now to save the planet, yet we never learn from our left-leaning media about the thousands of well-qualified scientists, including many distinguished names, who protest that the science is dubious.
Ignored is a petition to the U.S. government, signed by more than 31,000 well-qualified scientists, protesting that AGW is based on flawed ideas and that the use of hydrocarbons is not changing the climate.
Despite the revelations of scientific corruption, many who object are, often as not, vilified as far-out fringe types not worthy of serious attention.
The skeptics are smeared as funded by “big oil,” whether it is true or not, ignoring the fact that government grants dwarf all other support for research.
Here in north-central Maine, our only daily newspaper feeds us a steady diet of climate alarm, rarely publishing skeptical opinions other than an occasional letter.
The Portland Press Herald is commendable for its support of a lively debate on this important subject, so essential to an informed electorate. Thanks, and keep it up. See post here.
By Bob Tita, Dow Jones
CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- Deere & Co. (DE) has quietly dropped out of a coalition of large companies that has supported a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Deere, the world’s largest manufacturer of farm machinery, opted to leave the U.S. Climate Action Partnership in May because the group’s legislative strategy “no longer served as a foundation for moving forward” with climate change regulation, Ken Golden, a spokesman for the company said Tuesday.
“We came to the conclusion that Deere had other opportunities to be involved in climate change initiatives,” Golden said.
The Moline, Ill., company joins a handful of other companies that have left the partnership in recent months, as political support erodes for comprehensive energy legislation that includes a cap-and-trade program and stricter mandates for energy conservation. Other members to leave the group include construction machinery company Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), and energy companies BP PLC (BP.LN, BP) and ConocoPhillips Co. (COP)
A spokesman for the partnership, Tad Segal, offered no reaction to Deere’s reasons for leaving the group, but credited the company with “playing a valuable and significant role” in developing the group’s policy initiatives.
“As with every coalition, there have been membership changes, including departures and new memberships,” said Segal.
About two dozen companies remain in the group, including corporate heavyweights General Electric Co. (GE), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Siemens AG (SIE), and Alcoa Inc. (AA) The group also has picked up four new members in the past year, including Honeywell International Inc. (HON) and Weyerhaeuser Co. (WY) Icecap Note: Boycott targets!
The Washington-based coalition, which was founded in 2007, has been a lightning rod for opposition since its January 2009 Blueprint for Legislative Action recommended creating a phased-in cap-and-trade system for U.S. producers of carbon dioxide, the main ingredient in the heat-trapping greenhouse gas identified as the source of climate warming.
Under such a program, carbon dioxide producers, such as coal-fired power plants, would have their carbon emissions capped at a certain level by government-issued credits or allowances. Those that exceed their limits would have to purchase additional carbon credits from carbon producers whose emissions fall below their allowable amount.
A cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing carbon emissions by more than 80% by 2050 was included in energy legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009. But the House bill has been bogged down in the Senate by intense bipartisan opposition to cap-and-trade provisions. Carbon-emitting companies argue that a cap-and-trade system would put them at a disadvantage to competitors in other countries that don’t regulate carbon dioxide. The weak U.S. economy and the threat of job losses caused by cap-and-trade have added momentum to the cap-and-trade opposition.
Two conservative policy groups subjected Deere to public pressure tactics this spring in hopes of turning its employees against their company’s membership in the climate partnership.
In television commercials that aired in April in Moline, and Waterloo, Iowa--home of Deere’s tractor assembly plants--FreedomWorks and the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project said cap-and-trade legislation would put Deere’s U.S. employees at risk of loosing their jobs if the company pursues lower-cost manufacturing sites overseas.
The ads also accused Deere of supporting “back-room deals” by members of Congress to assemble enough votes to pass carbon regulation. The ads urged Deere employees to “stand up against back-room deals in Washington. Tell management: No more back-room deals.”
Tom Borelli, the director of the Free Enterprise Project, said the commercials helped convince Deere Chairman and Chief Executive Samuel Allen to depart the climate coalition.
“I really think we had an impact. We really hit a nerve,” said Borelli, who also confronted Allen about the Deere’s coalition membership at the company’s annual shareholders meeting in February.
Deere rejected the notion that groups such as Borelli’s influenced the company’s decision.
“Deere made a decision independent of the opinions of other organizations,” Golden, the company spokesman, said. “Our involvement with various trade and industry organizations is routinely reviewed.”
He added the company remains affiliated with other environmental groups that it believes can effectively influence climate change legislation. Deere is a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leaders program and participates in the Business Environmental Leadership Council.
Deere’s stock was recently down 1.3% at $61.54 a share
By Joanne Nova on SPPI
Are the small islands of the South Pacific in danger of disappearing, glug, under the waves of the rising ocean? Will thousands of poor inhabitants be forced to emigrate, as desperate refugees, to Australia and New Zealand? Has any of this got anything to do with man-made emissions of CO2?
By looking closely at the records, it turns out that the much advertised rising sea levels in the South Pacific depend on anomalous depressions of the ocean during 1997 and 1998 thanks to an El Nino and two tropical cyclones. The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a report by Vincent Gray which compares 12 Pacific Island records and shows that in many cases it’s these anomalies that set the trends… and if the anomaly is removed, sea levels appear to be more or less constant since the Seaframe measurements began around 1993 (below, enlarged here).
Sea levels: The El Nino / tropical storm anomaly in 1997-1998 is clear. A long sustained rise is not. Take the infamous Tuvalu for example. It’s sea level rise was reported as 5.7 mm/year back in 2008. Now it’s calculated as 3.7mm/year. But look at the Seaframe Graph - its flat. It is universally forecast to disappear by 2050. New Zealand has even agreed to accept the “inevitable” rush of refugees, yet the best records available show that sea levels have not risen at all since 1993. It’s not that it will take decades, or hundreds of years to submerge, there’s no reason to suppose it will submerge at all (asteroid strikes excepted). It’s a place that naturally is reshaped and reformed as the ocean moves sand from one part to another, and the corals shift and grow with the changes (below, enlarged here).
Tuvalu sea levels show little trend.
There may indeed be legitimate refugees from some areas, but it’s most likely due to subsidence, rather than sea-level rises.
ABSTRACT
The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there. The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS levelling equipment in 2000 (below, enlarged here).
The study includes the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
One of the big problems with measuring sea-levels is that everything is in motion. The tides shift, the sand moves, and even the bedrock can subside. The Seaframe stations are state of the art, and regularly checked to compensate for all these changes.
The Seaframe equipment used to measure sea levels is carefully re-calibrated every 18 months to take these factors into account.
Precise levelling of the height of the SEAFRAME sea level sensor relative to an array of land-based benchmarks is undertaken by Geosciences Australia every eighteen months where possible. The precision to which the survey must be performed is dependent on the distance Km (km) between the SEAFRAME sensor benchmark and the primary tide gauge benchmark (TGBM) and forms part of the project’s design specifications (below, enlarged here).
Seaframe for measuring sea levels:
The claimed sea level trends look alarmingly large, yet calculated trends can be misleading (below, enlarged here).
South Pacific Sea Levels 1992 - 2010
The people of Tuvalu are worried, and it appears, their anxiety and fears may simply be a product of those who want to draw attention to their own pet projects for their own selfish goals. Though the climate change fears have attracted some extra foreign aid to the country, how much of that filters through to the worried mums and dads, and how much just feeds the bureaucrats with their taxes?
We don’t want a mass migration but most people are worried for their kids. They see no future here in 50 years.
“If sea levels rise 0.5m in that time we won’t be entirely under water, but with king tides and storm surges we will be in severe trouble.”
The long-term future of Tuvalu as a viable nation is being considered by the Government.
The bottom line
No matter what was heating the Earth, sea levels would rise, the rise in and of itself tells us nothing about the cause of the warming. What’s amazing is that so much of our CO2 has been unleashed since 1993, yet at least in the South Pacific, it’s not clear that sea levels have risen.
See post here. Read the full assessment of the South Pacific Sea Levels thanks to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
By Ann McElhinney
Friends,
Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.
The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical “solutions” being proposed.
Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.
“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview.
Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.
His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.
Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.
They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.
“We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email.
It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.
Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.
But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.
They wanted to change their team. We agreed.
They wanted to change the format to less of a debate - to “a roundtable”. We agreed.
Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.
Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed
Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out.
He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.
No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.
We all agreed to that.
And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out “ Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.
James Cameron’s behavior raises some very important questions.
Does he genuinely believe in man made climate change? If he believes it is a danger to humanity surely he should be debating the issue every chance he gets ?
Or is it just a pose?
The man who called for an open and public debate at “high noon” suddenly doesn’t want his policies open to serious scrutiny.
I was looking forward to debating with the film maker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward that would help the poorest people in the developing and developed world.
But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great film maker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.
- Ann McElhinney
See blog post here.
Chicken Cameron Runs then Resorts to Ad Hominem Attacks
Friends,
Back in March James Cameron said, “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.”
This put into motion the debate-that-was-not, starting with Cameron calling Ann McElhinney, Marc Marono, and Andrew Breitbart requesting a debate at the AREDAY summit.
But as soon as they accepted, Cameron started backtracking. His list of demands for the debate can only be described as diva behavior, changing by the hour and becoming more restrictive every time. Ban cameras, ban audio, ban the media, ban the public.
We met every unreasonable demand. Yet, when it finally came time to sit down and discuss Global Warming the outspoken environmentalist turned tail and ran, canceling while one of the debaters, Marc Marono, was in flight. “The whole house of cards is falling! Well done, Jimmy! I’m beginning to doubt the existence of the Titanic,” mocked Dennis Miller.
Canceling the debate didn’t stop Cameron from trash-talking skeptics at AREDAY. “James Cameron quickly went for the oft-traversed intellectual low road of ad hominem attacks, recently attacking skeptics of global warming as those of piggish DNA,” said Tim Daniel of The Daily Caller.
James Cameron at High Noon (enlarged here).
Read much more here.
Energy Institute August Newsletter
With energy constantly in the headlines, and continued efforts in Congress to enact job-killing energy policies, Energy Institute officials have hit the road in an effort to educate Americans from coast to coast about our energy realities - and advocate for a balanced set of solutions to solve our challenges.
The Energy Institute’s Energy Reality Tour: A National Discussion About America’s Energy Future, has already featured stops in Indianapolis, Denver, Colorado Springs, Jacksonville, Seattle, and Juneau and Anchorage this summer, with more stops planned as the mid-term elections near. At each stop, Energy Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert is addressing business and community leaders, visiting the region’s top media outlets, and sharing specific facts and recommendations about pressing energy issues in each state and the nation as a whole.
Harbert is stressing the need to refrain from “rash to dash” decision-making which results in knee jerk reactions to events that will have negative long-term implications. Harbert and other Energy Institute officials point to the moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico that the Obama administration imposed shortly after the Gulf of Mexico accident in April as one of these reactions. The U.S. Chamber has launched a campaign to end the moratorium that is killing jobs and stunting economic growth in the Gulf region.
As if the moratorium weren’t enough, under the auspices of addressing the oil spill, House and Senate leaders proposed legislation that would essentially shut down America’s oil and gas industry by imposing new taxes and non-safety related regulations that would drive jobs overseas. Among the most problematic parts of the legislation are provisions that completely eliminate any liability cap for future incidents. While this may sound good at first blush, the reality is that without a cap, it would become almost impossible for companies to obtain required insurance. Considering that over 90 percent of leases in the Gulf of Mexico are held by independent companies, the legislation would hit small businesses particularly hard and make it very difficult for them to operate.
While the House of Representatives narrowly passed the bill (with 39 Democrats opposed), the Senate legislation collapsed and never made it to a floor vote. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vigorously opposed both measures. Energy Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert commented that the legislation “would harm our economy, shed more jobs and force us to become even more reliant on foreign oil.” The Chambers Key Vote letter in opposition to the House bill was quoted during debate on the House floor. We will continue to oppose ill-advised legislative proposals that will kill jobs and threaten the nations energy security when Congress returns in September.
Such actions are exactly why the Energy Institute has embarked on its tour. While many business owners are aware of how important energy is, it can be difficult to follow the day-today actions of Congress and the administration on these critical issues. By bringing facts and clarity to communities around the country, the Energy Institute is motivating local business leaders to become more engaged to ensure that our nation is getting the right leadership on energy and the economy, something which is more important than ever with mid-term elections looming.
Read more here.
Christopher Monckton
During the last few years, the desperation has become palpable among the UNIPCC, many Western governments and their lavishly-funded conscripts promoting more political centralization, massive transfers of wealth and technologies and breath-taking personal greed.
Because some of the graphs in the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report expose exaggerations, if not outright deceptions, in the UN’s IPCC reports, alarmist pro-IPCC, pro-regulatory websites have, of necessity, attacked them and their presenter, Christopher Monckton.
A response to these attacks appears in this month’s report, and also in this recent short paper posted on the SPPI website.
That the CO2 Report has not only provoked and engaged much needed debate on the central issues of science and governance - such as climate sensitivity, natural cycles beyond human control and transnational governance – but heightened it, is a major value in and of itself. The individual reader - to the extent that he/she understands the finer points of this debate - is invited to make up his/her own mind as to which side comes closest to reality, given the serious uncertainties in “climate science” and the climate models largely pretending at science.
As can be seen in the below listed contents of this month’s report, government-funded claims of catastrophe from temperature to sea level rise to tropical storms to sea ice extent to ocean “acidification” do not match real-world evidence - often the exact opposite is the case. The American people are increasingly awaking to this reality, resulting in a healthy, increasing distrust of the motives and actions of government and its paid servants in government agencies, NGOs and academia. The real “deniers” of science are coming to the fore.
Contents
Did ‘global warming’ cause Russia’s drought and Pakistan’s floods?
The authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for June 2010 explains that recent extreme weather is of natural origin and that the influence of Man is too small to have played a significant part. Editorial Comment: Page 3.
Morner on sea level: The Professor says yet another suggestion that sea level will soon rise 23 feet is nonsense. Page 4.
Our revised graphs explained: An account of how we compile our authoritiative SPPI temperature and CO2 graphs. Page 5.
IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, on present trends, it will be well short. Pages 6-8.
Since 1980 global temperature has risen at only 2.7 F (1.5 C)/century, not 6 F (3.4 C) as IPCC predicts. Pages 9-12.
Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has been rising since 1993 at a very modest 1 ft/century. Page 13.
Arctic sea-ice extent is nearing its summer minimum. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now at its third-highest in the 30-year record. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 14-18.
Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity remains at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Pages 19-22.
Sunspot activity is back to low-normal: but, looking back it was a long - and cool - solar minimum. Pages 23-24.
The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Sunspot activity are illustrated at Pages 25-28.
There is no cause for alarm: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says CO2 and warming are normal. Pages 29-32.
As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, the surest way to check policy costs against benefits. Pages 33-34.
Our selection of recent scientific papers of interest, compiled by Dr. Craig Idso of www.co2science.org. Pages 35-40.
The medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than the present, as our global map shows. Page 41.
See report here.