By Dr. David Evans

Summary for Policymakers

* Air temperatures have been falling for years. Satellites show that 1998 was the warmest recent year and that a cooling trend started in 2002.

Even the land-based thermometer data, which is corrupted by artificial heating sources close to 89% of its thermometers and which is heavily “corrected”, now shows a cooling trend developing from 2006.

Adjustments applied by NOAA to surface data. Larger here.

* The alarmists recently switched to ocean temperature to measure global warming.

* The alarmists claim the world is still warming, that heat is building up in the oceans, and that the ocean temperature is rising and rising fast. These claims implicitly depend on a time period to say what a “trend” is, because temperatures fluctuate. The alarmists provide the context by showing trends of 20 to 50 years. This is a clever trick to reframe the debate, and essential to their case.

* Ocean temperatures have only been measured properly from mid 2003, when the Argo network became operational. Over 3,000 Argo floats cover all the world’s oceans. They dive down to measure temperatures, then resurface to radio back the information. The previous XBT system did not monitor huge areas of ocean, did not go as deep, and was much less accurate.

Larger here.

* Ocean temperatures are dropping slightly. The Argo data shows that the oceans have been cooling slightly since mid 2003. Our best data, from satellites and Argo, shows that the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years. The world is now cooling slightly, so there is no heat accumulating. Some natural cooling force is currently stronger than the warming due to human emissions.

Larger here.

* Short-term trends contradict the alarmist claims. Our best data, from satellites and Argo, shows that the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years. The world is now cooling slightly, so there is no heat accumulating. Some natural cooling force is currently stronger than the warming due to human emissions.

* Long-term trends contradict the alarmist claims. The world has been recovering from the little ice age, warming at a steady trend rate since 1750 with alternate warming and cooling oscillations of about 30 years. The pattern suggests we have just finished the last warming, and have entered a cooling period until about 2030.

* The latest alarmist claims are a bluff. The alarmist claims only appear credible if trends shorter than 10 years or longer than 50 years are ignored. But it will take time to inform the public and politicians that the alarmist’s claims are baseless. With the US climate bill now being debated and the Copenhagen climate conference coming up in December 2009, they only need to make the public believe their schtick for a few months.

* Problems with alarmist graphs of ocean heat. They omit Argo data by stopping in 2003, or contradict it by showing ocean warming continuing through 2006.

The Latest Alarmist Claims are a Bluff

The claims of the alarmists about rising ocean temperatures and accumulating heat are wrong in the short term and wrong in the long term. They appear credible only if you ignore trends shorter than 10 years and trends longer than 50 years. They crumble under analysis. But it will take time to inform the public and politicians that the alarmist’s claims are baseless. With the US climate bill now being debated and the Copenhagen climate conference coming up in December 2009, they only need to make the public believe their schtick for a few months. This is a bluff. See PDF here.

By Robert Moon, Macon County Conservative Examiner

Chapter 4 of my book, titled, “An Inconvenient Hoax,” systematically exposes and confronts all the most current science fiction being shoved down our throats by the Luddite absolutists and pseudo-intellectual scam artists of the left. It is devastating.

Unsurprisingly, there is a flurry of new data pouring in even further confirming how utterly baseless this invented Green Scare really is, now even from Obama’s own people. Much like the Swine Flu and about a gazillion other contrived alarmist fantasies from decades past (breast implants, Alar, the Millenium bug, DDT, etc.), public faith in the environmentalist religion is consequently fading, and fast. As Investor’s Business Daily put it:

Nearly half (48%) believe the cause is naturally occurring planetary trends. Just a year ago, only 34% said warming was a natural phenomenon, while 47% said human activity was placing the planet at risk of disastrous climate change. That’s a huge shift.

Interestingly, a growing number of Americans (58%) say we need to build more nuclear power plants, with 63% saying that finding additional sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. They recognize that a growing economy requires more energy, not less, and that nukes are a pollution-free way of getting it.

Even countries utterly saturated with the left’s absurd scare-mongering on this, like Australia, are producing loud voices of reason in an ocean of bogus, hysterical environmental propaganda.

As Andrew Bolt, of The Herald Sun put it (on 4/29/09):

Global warming alarmists must be feeling a chill as new facts overwhelm their fiction. It’s snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. And that’s just the news of the past week. Bolt then issued a challenge…

Here’s a test: Name just three clear signs the planet is warming...Just three. Chances are your “proofs” are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming. And if your “proofs” indeed turn out to be false, don’t get angry with me.  Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have? So let’s see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.

The List…

MYTH 1: THE WORLD IS WARMING

Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week “temperatures have dropped...both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites.” In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)

Some experts, such as Professor David Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man’s rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.

But that’s all theory. The question I’ve asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted? Read more here.

By Senator James Inhofe

It’s safe to say that at 3:09 am on June 26th, most of America was asleep.  While they slept, Democratic leaders in the House were creating a nightmare: in the early morning hours, Speaker Pelosi and her deputies were pushing the largest tax increase in American history. In the dead of night, with no one watching, they engaged in full-scale arm twisting, backroom dealing, and outright pork-barreling to garner support for a massive bill, which few even read or understood. 

When America awoke, they found Democrats talking about “green jobs” and the “new clean energy economy.” They spoke of free-markets and innovation and energy independence.  All of it sounded so appealing, yet none of it was true. That’s because Waxman-Markey is full of regulations, mandates, bureaucracy, and big government programs.  Waxman-Markey is, to quote John Dingell (D. MI),"a tax, and a great big one,” on small businesses, families, and consumers.

I don’t blame the Democrats for selling cap-and-trade as something it’s not.  This is a political imperative for them, because the American people now know what cap-and-trade is, and they don’t like it.  According to independent political analysis Charlie Cook, “Many Democrats getting back to Washington from the Independence Day recess reported getting an earful from their constituents over the ‘energy tax hike’” Further, Cook noted, “The perception is that this is a huge tax increase at a time when people can ill afford one. Hence, Democrats, whether they supported the bill or not, are getting battered, increasing their blood pressure.”

It’s safe to say that the House members who voted ‘yes’ for this bill are regretting their vote. So why are politicians who voted for cap-and-trade getting such an earful?  For one, many Americans are struggling financially, and many Americans are out of work.  So when they hear about Nancy Pelosi’s plan to raise their electricity, food, and gasoline bills, they rightly get upset.  As of now, the American people don’t want to pay anything to address climate change for 3 reasons: the science is flawed, we are in a cooling period and it would constitute the largest tax increase in history. But don’t take my word for it: poll after poll confirms this.  Consider a the most recent national poll on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, in which 58 percent of Americans said they won’t pay any more than they currently pay in their electricity bills to address climate change. 

Against this backdrop, it’s no surprise that Democrats are calling Waxman-Markey, among other things, a “jobs bill.” In doing this, the Democrats betray a certain amount of desperation in their attempt to pass cap-and-trade.  They see a rising tide of opposition when they go back to their districts - and they also see that the math in the Senate doesn’t add up.  But supporters of this bill won’t give up, and, unfortunately for them, neither will we. 

I think the time is right, then, to peel back the green veil and expose this 1,400-page monument to big government.  There’s a lot in there, and at times the bill gets very complicated.  But over the next several weeks, I plan to focus on some of the bill’s most damaging provisions, as well as those that reinforce the criticisms I’ve been making. On that note, let’s begin with the claim that Waxman-Markey will be an engine of job creation.  First, there’s no evidence that this will create an overall net gain of new jobs.  Putting stress on “net gain” is important here.  Backers routinely claim the bill will create “green” jobs in the renewable energy.  That’s true - there will be greater demand for solar panels and windmills.  But that’s only one side of the equation. 

The fact is that Waxman-Markey will destroy millions of manufacturing jobs, meaning that America will experience a net job loss.  Consider a recent analysis of Waxman-Markey by CRA International, commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce.  The analysis found that, “the number of these new ‘green jobs’ will be lower than the number of the other jobs that [Waxman-Markey] would destroy elsewhere in the economy.”

In total, Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs.  In other words, on the one hand, we’ll create some green jobs, but on the other, we’ll destroy many more jobs.  Take Spain as an example. According to a study from King Juan University in Madrid, every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571,138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.  Now the Democrats want to transfer that same logic to the United States. They want to use expanded government, bureaucracy and taxes to create jobs, while if the private sector could just go to work, 2.2 jobs could be created for every 1 job that is created by the government.  In this economy, those numbers add up.

I think most Americans would find it curious that a bill that supposedly creates jobs contains provisions to help people who would lose their jobs because of the legislation. What does this mean?  The authors of Waxman-Markey, through this provision, implicitly acknowledge that Waxman-Markey will destroy jobs.  The “adjustment” mentioned is just a euphemism for the pink slip workers get when Waxman-Markey goes into effect.  And then, through a laborious process, they can petition the federal government for taxpayer handouts.

But that’s not all: workers may be eligible in certain circumstances for a one-time job search allowance up to $1,500, and for relocation assistance up to $1,500. What’s going on here?  Again, the authors of Waxman-Markey created an elaborate bureaucratic, taxpayer-funded social services program for people who lose their jobs because of Waxman-Markey.  But isn’t Waxman-Markey a jobs bill?  Why would any of these big government programs be necessary if the bill is supposed to create jobs?  The answer is simple: buried at the end of nearly 1,400 pages of taxes and mandates, we see the stark reality of this bill: it sends pink slips to workers and then promises the unemployed that they will get assistance from the government. 

You simply can’t create a rational, workable, commonsensical national energy policy by putting people out of work.  It’s the Democrats who will not allow us to produce our own oil and gas. We could be completely free from our dependency on the middle east for oil and gas. The alternative Republican plan goes in a different direction.  We support opening access to domestic energy resources, removing barriers to innovative clean energy technologies, and allowing all forms of energy to power this great machine called America.  And we firmly reject an energy policy based on taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy. 
Read full speech here.