Nancy Pelosi To Save Planet!!
July 30, 2008
If gas prices are too high, learn to live with it. Nancy Pelosi is adamant about offshore drilling, regardless of polls that put her at odds with three-quarters of the electorate on this issue.
I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy. . . when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”
According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.
The gavel isn’t Pelosi’s to give — it belongs to the electorate now spending a third of their paycheck just to get to work.
North Pole To Melt By September, Say Scientists
July 20, 2008
According to a report in National Geographic Magazine, “Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.”
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.”
Global warming proponents love to say things like “first time in history” as if ‘history’ only goes back as far as the earliest climate records. That is generally considered to be around 1850. Earlier records exist, but they are generally unreliable.
Over the course the reliable historical record, there have been two recorded warming periods: 1910-1945 and 1976 - 2000. The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change reported that, over the past 100 years, the global temperature has increased 0.74 degrees C (or just over 1 degree F)
However, there is a level of uncertainty regarding global temperature statistics estimated at about .05 degrees since 1950 and as much as 0.15 degrees before that. And the UN IPCC itself concluded in 1997 that; ” that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating.”
However, even if the Arctic were to completely thaw in September, it would not raise sea levels. And Antarctica is cooling, not warming. So the only way Al Gore’s cataclysmic flooding can take place is for Greenland’s glaciers to melt and for the runoff to make it to the North Atlantic.
However, a new study has concluded that Greenland’s rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.
The researchers noted the speedup observed by past studies was strictly a short-term transient phenomena, occurring primarily in the summer months.
So, if you are among those who has invested in a piece of the Arizona desert, hoping to leave their heirs beach-front property in fifty years, maybe you should rethink that investment strategy. It isn’t gonna happen.
Global warming is a business, not a science. There is money to be made in selling the disease and power to be had by offering the cure. If the symptoms fail to cooperate with the diagnosis, then the only alternative is to invent new symptoms.
So the Arctic is melting. Maybe. We’ll revisit this again in September. It will interesting to hear the explanation for why it didn’t.
California Mandates Global Warming Score
July 7, 2008
by Jack Kinsella
The Borg-like brain that dictates thought to the Global Warming Collective in the Land of Fruits and Nuts has taken time out from saving the earth to mandate a new label (thereby destroying uncounted numbers of trees) be placed on all new cars displaying that particular car’s “global warming score.
As Greenbiz gleefully noted, all cars will have to display a ‘global warming score’ — somewhere between one and ten, with ten being the cleanest possible score.
The score will be displayed next to the already-required smog score, which also rates cars one to 10 for how many smog-forming emissions they emit. For both scores, an average vehicle will have a score of five.
California is the first state of pass such as law, and a similar law will take effect in New York for 2010 model year vehicles. Global warming scores will be included on the state’s DriveClean website.
As to the score itself, the Greens have no doubt figured out something as impossible-to-comprehend as the sale of ‘carbon offsets’ — a system whereby some Ubangi tribesman doesn’t own a car, therefore, you can buy the carbon ‘credits’ he isn’t using from Al Gore who then invests the money for you in some green scheme. Preferably one owned by Al Gore.
One has to ask the question: IF global warming was the looming catastrophe that Al Gore’s Weather Machine says it is going to be, then what possible good can labeling a car do? I mean, really. Suppose these guys really believed the world was going to be destroyed in fifty years by man-made carbon emissions. To save the world, they want to mandate a label? THAT’S their option?
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged their support to the fight against global warming, which they each promised to make the centerpiece of their respective administrations. They, too, claim that they really, really believe in man-made global warming.
Senator Obama says he believes that global warming is “one of the most serious problems facing our generation.”
Senator John McCain is the lead author of a Senate proposal to reduce carbon emissions by 65% by 2050. During a GOP debate, he said,
“We ought to be investing in alternate energy sources. Recently, there was a group of retired military officers who said climate change and energy independence is a national security issue. It is.”
But when the bill hailed by Barbara Boxer as, “a milestone in the fight against global warming,” went before the Senate, neither Barack Obama OR John McCain even showed up to vote on it.
They really, really believe it is the most serious issue of our generation,” and a “national security issue,”
“We are Borg. Resistance is futile.”
The Effects of Global Warming
July 2, 2008
I found this explanation for global warming on the web. Ok, no more messing around. We’re doomed.
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level. The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years — to 300,000 people a year. Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
Or, the computer models could be wrong. After all, we’re using the same computer technology to predict what the weather is going to be doing next week. How much would you bet that Accu Weather’s forecast for next Thursday will be accurate?
It seems a fair question.
NASA Forecasts Violent Solar Storm Season
June 17, 2008
In March 2007, scientists at the National Science Foundation and NASA reached a consensus opinion that the next sunspot cycle will be “thirty to fifty percent stronger” that the last one.
The sun goes through approximately 11-year cycles, from peak storm activity to quiet, and back again. Solar scientists have tracked these cycles without being able to predict their relative intensity or timing. Until now, according to NASA.
By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.
Solar storms are linked to twisted magnetic fields that suddenly snap and release tremendous amounts of energy. They tend to occur near dark regions of concentrated magnetic fields, known as sunspots.
Scientists have attributed observed climate changes to a combination of natural variations and human activities. Computer models of global climate reproduced an observed global warming during the first half of the 20th century when two solar influences were combined.
But in the mid-1990’s, it was decided that the relationship between sunspots and global warming was non-existent. The 2004 issue of Science Daily explained:
“[The] more pronounced warming observed during the century’s last decades is attributed to greenhouse gases accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere and is not part of the study.”
(See? Just because it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn’t necessarily mean its a duck. Maybe its an aardvark. All you need to do is redefine what constitutes a ‘duck.’)
The last maximum solar cycle, called “Cycle 23″ began in 1986, about the same time Al Gore was drafting his book, “Earth in the Balance” that earned Gore the nickname given him by Bush 41 during the 1992 general election: the “Ozone Ranger” .
In 1997, during what was forecast to be a minimum solar cycle, for reasons not yet explained, sunspot activity increased, rather than decreased.
(See “Sunspot Activity Threatens New Disruptions” OL Vol 48 Issue 12 )
According to NASA, the warmest years on record were 1998, 2002 - 2004 and 2007.
In 2008, the sun quieted, and ‘coincidentally’ the planet began to cool. Last April, in coordination with an international panel of solar experts, NOAA issued a forecast that Solar Cycle 24 would start in March 2008, plus or minus six months.
The panel was then evenly split between those predicting a strong or weak cycle. Interestingly, both sides claimed to champion the ‘consensus’ opinion.
Both camps have since come to agree that the sooner the new cycle takes over the waning previous cycle, the more likely that it will be a strong season with many sunspots and major storms.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute warned that global temperatures would begin to cool as a result.
“Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012.
Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
“Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.”
I don’t know if Sorokhtin’s forecast is right or not. He is using the same data as the global warming evangelists, with one notable exception — the cause.
Al Gore says it is human activity, despite the science that says 95% of greenhouse gases come from the oceans, volcanic activity and rotting vegetation.
Mankind is responsible for a small percentage (14-18%) of the remaining FIVE PERCENT of the total. Dr. Sorokhtin blames the sun for global warming.
(The sun warms the earth and not the light of man? Who knew?)
When it comes to a genuine ‘consensus opinion’ the only REAL consensus is that both sides agree the other side is 100% wrong.
The Ozone Ranger Consensus has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese, but curbing man-made carbon emissions is Big Business worth billions of dollars.
But there is NOTHING mankind can do about the sun and therefore no profit motive. So the Ozone Rangers totally ignore the correlation between solar activity and the rise and fall of global temperatures.
So, where I am going here? Let’s summarize and see if we can detect a familiar theme.
There is something approaching global panic over climate change. Depending on who you ask, we are facing climactic catastrophe from either global warming or global cooling — but all agree on the ‘climactic catastrophe’ part.
The Ozone Rangers are forecasting rising seas, coastal flooding, and catastrophic warming. Dr. Sorohkin and his supporters are forecasting encroaching glaciers and catastrophic global cooling.
The Ozone Rangers are united in their contention that the cause is greenhouse gases. Astrophysicists are equally convinced that the cause is unusually strong solar activity.
The two sides share but two points in common — fear of catastrophic changes to the climate and confusion about the cause.
Let’s compare it with what Jesus Christ said would be one of the signs of His impending return:
“And there shall be signs in the sun, (solar flares) and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress [fear] of nations, with perplexity; [confusion] the sea and the waves roaring [catastrophic climate change];
Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth, for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:24-25)
The summary offered by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago is identical to the summary explanation(s) for climate change and its effect on both the planet and its inhabitants.
But Jesus takes it further, explaining both the hows AND the whys behind the perception of catastrophic climate change.
“And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory,” He said. But before that event takes place, the Lord gave this warning to His Church.
“And when these things begin to come to pass then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:26-27)
Poll
Loading ...
