By Daniel B. Botkin
Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life—ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I’ve developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life—I’ve used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I’m not a naysayer. I’m a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well.
I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. Read more here.
By Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute
This professional organization that prides itself in its Code of Ethics hosted a one-sided global warming session at its annual event. The organization’s Code of Ethics, already scarce in the media’s climate coverage, includes among its stated principles: (1) Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting, (2) Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant, (3) Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
However, when the panel was confronted with the question of maintaining the balance between reporting the news and playing the role of advocacy journalist, Greenwald, one of the panelists, offered the standard talking points. “I think the facts are actually quite compelling,” Greenwald said. “We advocate one thing, but a lot of what we do is just report the facts … A lot of scientists worked on that question [if global warming was just natural] and did very sophisticated analysis that are sort of hard to explain because a lot of it is about pattern analysis and if you look at the pattern of global warming and try to find some sort of explanation, the only explanation that actually works for it is the greenhouse gases. We need help from journalists to explain to the public what is at stake and how we are going to be able to move forward,” Greenwald said. “And I guess finally is to where I could use some help is on cap and trade because cap and trade is what we’re talking about doing as the centerpiece”.
But even the highly-respected former Federal Reserve chairman and economist Alan Greenspan questioned in his book, “The Age of Turbulence,” the validity of a cap and trade system’s impact as an effective means to fight global warming. “Yet as an economist, I have grave doubts that international agreements imposing a globalized so-called cap-and-trade system on CO2 emissions will prove feasible,” Greenspan wrote. “There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.” Read more here.
By Robert Bryce on Counterpunch
Facts don’t matter. Only spin matters. That’s the main conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week.
My complaint has nothing to do with the science of global warming or whether or not the current warming of the planet is due solely to manmade causes. Rather, it’s this: Gore won the prize even though his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, concludes with one of the most blatantly absurd statements ever committed to film. Just before the final credits, in a segment that advises viewers as to what they might do to help slow global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."ù
Again, the point is not whether or not I agree with Gore’s view on warming. Instead the objection stems from this obvious point: We humans breathe. And in doing so, we emit carbon dioxide. The idea that we can somehow negate the gas that results from our respiration--through the legerdemain of carbon credits, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, or fleets of Toyota Priuses is simply not possible. And the fact that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie--including, particularly, Gore himself--paused to consider the veracity of their declaration leaves me agog. Read more here.
by Matt Schantzen, Sun Star Reporter
The auditorium of the Reichardt building was the setting last Thursday for a presentation by Alaska’s most respected skeptic on global warming, Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, adding more ammunition to a current debate filled with propaganda and vitriol from both sides. In the presentation: a mixture of data sets, satellite images, and straight-forward examples to buttress his argument, the soft-spoken Akasofu picked apart many conclusions that have been brought forward by the scientific community regarding this politically-charged topic. The lecture began with various graphs showing that the Earth’s average surface temperature has been rising since the beginning of the industrial age, however, this information was put into perspective by historical climate data.
For example, an episode of climatic warming roughly one thousand years ago, known as the Medieval warm period, showed average global temperatures to be slightly higher than today, roughly seven-tenths of a degree Celsius. This difference between today’s global average and the temperature one thousand years previous is roughly the same difference in temperatures between the beginning of the industrial age and today. From this data comparison, it was Akasofu’s conclusion that the current warming trend falls within natural fluctuations. Before we fully understand the natural processes that are at work, it is difficult to make the assumption that human activities are responsible for the current warming, said Akasofu.
This lack of understanding of climatic processes has led to a dearth of conflicting information that has been released by the scientific community, often supplemented by computer models that show the Earth’s global temperature in a runaway mode exacerbated by human activities. These models often have the data inputs of rising carbon dioxide levels from the burning of fossil fuels in industrial activities and applications. This issue of using carbon dioxide levels tied to temperature as an input in the computer model skews the results of the computer model, stated Akasofu. This is a common problem with computer models, regardless of the application, because the computer does not understand the whole system involved, it can only model something based on the inputs given. Read full details here.
Manchester Union Leader
Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.
Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention—dynamite—was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.
Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.
Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)
On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors. Read more here.
By the Sunday Herald Sun, Australia
The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN’s top climate panel on Friday has prompted a fresh chorus of criticism from global warming sceptics—with one dubbing the award “a political gimmick”. The former vice-president has an Oscar for his film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, and the Nobel prize proved a laurel too far for some of his detractors.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus cast doubt on Gore’s contribution to the cause of peace, the ostensible purpose of the Norwegian prize. In a statement, the climate change sceptic said he was “a bit surprised that Al Gore has received a peace prize because the connection between his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear”. In Norway, the main opposition party expressed its surprise at the decision. Gjermund Hagesaether, from the far-right Progress Party, said: “We believe it is strange to give the prize to Al Gore for having made a film on climate that is subjective, one-sided and full of one-sided assertions.”
In France, a sour note was sounded by a leading French climate sceptic, former Socialist education minister and award-winning geochemist Claude Allegre. He brushed off Friday’s announcement as “a political gimmick”, saying: “The amount of nonsense in Al Gore’s film! It’s all politics, it’s designed to intervene in American politics. It’s scandalous. There’s a presidential election upcoming in the United States, and it’s well known that Gore wants to run.”
And one of the world’s foremost meteorologists called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”. Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not responsible for global warming. “We’re brainwashing our children,” said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.” Read more here.
By Dan Gainor and Jeff Poor in the Business and Media Institute
Climate alarmist receives Nobel Peace Prize with conveniently red hot support from journalists.
The award he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put Gore in the ranks of people like President Theodore Roosevelt, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa and Martin Luther King. But none of them had the widespread media campaign Gore enjoyed – portraying him in almost messianic terms as an “evangelist,” a “preacher,” or a “prophet.”
The media put Gore front and center on a seemingly endless stream of shows and networks – “Larry King,” the morning news shows, the nightly news programs and even “Saturday Night Live” and the Sci-Fi Channel. In just three months of summer of 2006, Gore and his movie had spent more than five hours and 38 minutes on national television. In 2007, eight networks under the umbrella of NBC set aside an incredible 93 hours to his “Live Earth” concert, including three hours in primetime on NBC.
The Business & Media Institute has extensively analyzed the media’s coverage of global warming and showed Gore was just following a recent media tactic to claim the debate is over when the media have reported four separate changes in climate during the last 110 years in Fire & Ice. The report covers a hundred years of coverage of global warming. While journalists have warned of climate change for more than 100 years, the warnings switched from global cooling to warming to cooling and warming again.
Read full detailed story here.
By: E. Ralph Hostetter , Newsmax
It’s one thing for a group of elitists to develop questionable theories about environmental issues that escape proof or disproof in the near term; however, it is quite a different thing when their unproven theories find their way into the U.S. tax code. Enough is enough!
A climate change tax bill designed to fight global warming will be introduced in the near future by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. U.S. drivers will be forced to pay a 50-cent tax on every gallon they pump. Then, Dingell reasons that the increased cost will encourage drivers to use less fuel and therefore reduce greenhouse gases and make the planet safe for future generations. To prove he really cares, Dingell’s proposal also will phase out the mortgage interest deduction from taxable income on loans for large houses more than 3,000 square feet and eliminate the property tax deduction benefit for all houses more than 4,200 square feet. This little gift, no doubt, will pay for the global warming damages caused by the fossil fuel energy used to light and heat your home.
A published study, “Fire and Ice” by R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor of the Business and Media Institute, exposes the hypocrisy of the envirocrat movements of the last century. The point of this discourse is to illustrate the unreliability of the promoters of present day global warming issues. These purveyors of untruth are creating fear within our society. They imply that Americans will face death due to environmental consequences such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and other forms of violent weather. These “environmental” consequences have been considered normal weather in the past.
The trailer from Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” claims ominously: “Our ability to live is what is at stake.” And now to give the envirocrat promoters of this unfounded and unproved global warming fantasy access to the U.S. tax code is unthinkable. Read more of the story and about the published study here.