jeffreymark

BEATING A DEAD CLIMATE HORSE

Compare this to this. Liberals continue to raise the climate destruction card, but NASA offers differnt data.

Nancy Pelosi on today's vote: "What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

Why? What's so great about life on this planet as we know it today? Let liberals defend the status quo. We conservatives seek to improve life on this planet. If I could paraphrase Bobby Kennedy: There are those, like Nancy Pelosi, who look at things the way they are, and ask why. We dream of things that never were--like reducing domestic discretionary spending, year over year--and ask why not!

Or, to paraphrase another of Pelosi's predecessors: The liberals only interpret the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

From NASA via PowerLIne we learn:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.



"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

I know nothing about climate science. I do know however, that liberal pundit pricks possess nothing beyond a stolid, intellectual blueprint. The blueprint suggests that idiots must never walk outside their robotic box. 

 

MY HUMBLE TAKE ON CLIMATE TALK

The debate concerning climatology never ceases. Meanwhile I offer my take on the issue. First of all, no one really knows . Second, the score rests in the hands of the biggest and loudest opportunist out there. I suggests we carry on like we did before the debate appeared front and center, and keep our eyes fixed upon constant improvement. 

Hugh Heweitt, via PowerLine,  offers conservative political candidates some advice:

Climate change is a complex matter, not easily tackled in the short sound-byte format of modern campaigns and inch-deep political reporters. It is possible both to acknowledge the potential seriousness of the issue while going on the attack at the same time against the badly flawed conventional wisdom. Herewith a primer on the short answers candidates should give, along with supplemental commentary and additional facts. Even these answers are probably too long for the campaign trail, but is necessary for candidates to at least master this much of the outline of the issue, and have the confidence to speak with authority on it.

Continue reading here.

LORD MONCKTON CALLS OUT AL GORE

Former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher, Lord Monckton, challenged Al Gore to face his critics. Lord Monckton likened the cowardice of Gore to socialism's manipulative junk science and deceptive propaganda. Of course Al Gore must double down with his claims because he now stands to lose lots of money. In fact he's sort of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Oh what tangled webs we do weave, when first we practice to deceive. Watch the preview of Lord Monckton's interview with PJTV below, and click here to view the complete interview. 

ENERGY POLICE

In the beginning law abiding Americans created policemen who protected us from murderers, thieves, and rapists. Then came liberalism and thought police. They protect murderers, thieves, and rapists from old fashioned church going types. Now we hear about energy police. They protect liberal politician's power (Al Gore types) by enforcing that which is based on lies, presumption, and junk science. Has it really come down to this? The piece below vividly illustrates unchecked liberalism's insane, delusional end.

GET OFF THE CLIMATE BS ALREADY

Why don't you people get the hell off climate change. Quit politicizing the issue. Perhaps we ought to spend a little more time on the things we can change-like our extreme intolerance for one another and our adolescent dispositions.

GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD A FELONY ?

Many astute current events observer knows by now about the apparent global warming fraud nefariously  perpetrated on the world. Michael Ramirez makes a provocative statement about the criminality of the matter in his latest cartoon. John Hinderaker debates this potentially cataclysmic issue further.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND MORAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The folks at Scrapple Face, with tongue in cheek, remind us that while we as a nation transfixed ourselves on Michael Jackson's death, the Democrats engaged in passing the biggest tax fraud of our nation's history.  And the irony vividly illustrates the plight of our national character. Americans are infatuated with a despicable child molesting pop star, who did nothing to enhance our collective well being, oblivious to power hungry elites who seek to politely rape us and severely restrict our opportunities for greatness.  Where is the Church on this one?  Why do Christians smugly leave American affairs to "God's" will while they spend their time waving their hands in worship and listening to the latest worship song on their big screen televisions? Are they afraid to face the facts; afraid God may call them to action? If this nation's national character changes we will all be responsible for leaving the next generation with misery. 

In addition, the W$J (via Roger Simon) sheds light on the moral aspect of this climate change bill:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.  

CONCERNING CLIMATE COMRADES

As an evangelical I understand the biblical mandate to dress, till, and keep the earth-environmentalism plain and simple. But, do evangelicals comprehend the implications of handing this important mandate over to Caesar?  The liberals this nation elected possess no sense of history, cater to our adolescent disposition, and govern with reckless abandon. Even members of their own party secretly cringe at the loss of reason and common sense. My Godfather blogger Hugh Hewitt offers a scathing description of the monster we have unleashed in this nation:

They could not have read the bill.  

A 300 page amendment to a bill that greatly impacts every American and greatly burdens every American business was introduced at 3:00 AM Friday and passed 16 hours later.

The spectacle of the House voting for a massive tax increase and a 300 page amendment they could not have read is a low point for post-segregationist Congresses.  Never have so few read so little about so important a proposal, and yet brazen forward oblivious to the the deeply embarrassing charade it presents to the world.  Banana republics make a better show of governing themselves than did the U.S. House of Representatives today.

The only good thing about this disaster for the country's reputation is the undeniable message it sends to voters about just how hard left the Democrats are and at the same time just how irresponsible the Obama/Pelosi/Reid majority is.  Not only does today's debacle  strengthen the case for a massive course correction and return to balance in D.C. in 2010, it also should increase resistance to the similarly radical attempt to remake American medicine into a single-payer, government-dominated, Canada-style plan.  A majority so obviously indifferent to the substance of "legislation" they pass should not be trusted with the medicine that Americans need to live well and long.

The country knows the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrats are drunk on power and lurching so far to the left as to stun even partisan Democrats.  The Senate may stop this attempt at economic suicide, but independents and Republicans cannot allow the public to forget the recklessness of today's abdication of responsibility by the hard left House leadership. 

CLIMATE DEBATE

Today's weather makes it a bit tough for global warming Algore robots to convincingly make a case. A web site entitled Climate Debate Daily offers a view from both sides of the fence. The site offers this synopsis describing their purpose:

Climate Debate Daily is intended to deepen our understanding of disputes over climate change and the human contribution to it. The site links to scientific articles, news stories, economic studies, polemics, historical articles, PR releases, editorials, feature commentaries, and blog entries. The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of signficant anthropogenic global warming. The right-hand column includes material skeptical of the IPCC position and the notion that anthropogenic global warming represents a genuine threat to humanity.
Many sites on the Internet, including some of those listed at the far left of the page, take firm views for or against the threat of anthropogenic global warming. As a matter of editorial policy, Climate Debate Daily maintains a studied neutrality, allowing each side to present its most powerful and persuasive case. Our object is to allow readers to form their own judgments based on the best available information.
Climate Debate Daily will offer new material toward the tops of its main columns most days of the week. Occasionally, the page may remain unchanged over a day or two. Items in the columns will also be reordered now and again, to keep what are in the editors' estimation more important items on the page for longer periods. Many links, especially those to news periodicals, have limited shelf life, and we urge readers to save or print out contributions they regard as important. Although links will go eventually into an archive page, we retain no copies of material linked to here.
Items removed from Climate Debate Daily are transferred to our 2008 ARCHIVE.
We welcome reader suggestions for links to include on Climate Debate Daily. Please send them here. On questions of what ultimately goes onto the page, the editors' decisions are final.
Editors: Douglas Campbell and Denis Dutton
Douglas Campbell is currently completing a Ph.D in philosophy at the University of Arizona while teaching philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He has degrees in computer science and biology, and has worked as a wildlife ranger with endangered species. His areas of philosophical expertise include logic and the philosophy of science. He is impressed by the breadth and depth of the scientific evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and thinks that to the extent that the science remains uncertain the Precautionary Principle still justifies even relatively costly mitigation measures. Like Prof. Dutton, he is, however, open to being led by logic and good evidence to whatever the truth may be. His optimistic hope is that Climate Debate Daily will help focus minds on the very best arguments from both sides of the debate and help put the poor arguments (of which there are many!) to rest.
Denis Dutton is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He founded and edits the Johns Hopkins University Press journal, Philosophy and Literature, and the well-known website, Arts & Letters Daily. At the University of Canterbury he has recently introduced a new course on the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Prof. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which human activity has contributed to the general warming trend that began in the 1880s. He adds, however, "Working at the university where Karl Popper taught in the 1930s and 40s, I am more than a little aware of the way that good scientific hypotheses must always be open to falsification. The best way for science and public policy to proceed is to keep assessing evidence pro and con for anthropogenic global warming. That is the idea behind Climate Debate Daily." Denis Dutton's personal website is here.
Climate Debate Daily is an independent website which began its life on the internet on January 1, 2008. It has no financial or institutional connection with the University of Canterbury, Arts & Letters Daily, or Philosophy and Literature. Climate Debate Daily is generously supported by a grant from Dr. Peter Farrell of ResMed Corp. (www.resmed.com). Like Denis Dutton, Dr. Farrell is skeptical of the threat of anthropogenic global warming. But he also says, "Let the best argument win."

 

CLIMATE CHANGE BS

A host of scientists disagree with AlGore concerning climate change. Their case is revealing as Dr. Donald May suggests:

Where are Al Gore and his Global Warming hot air when we need them?  It was snowing today in Houston and New Orleans. Last week there was a major snowstorm in Pusan, the large southern port city of South Korea.
Al Gore is pleading his case at a United Nations conference for climate change in Poland.  Gore and others are trying to frighten and coerce the United States and other economically productive nations into believing that their prosperity will somehow affect the climate of Earth.
In reality, Gore and others apparently would greatly profit from carbon caps, carbon exchange schemes, and other green businesses designed to reduce the guilt of burning fossil fuels.  By paying an indulgence fee to a company, a national tax, and a tax to the United Nations, we are told that all will supposedly be well.  In reality, some will profit at the expense of the many.
It was reported Thursday that 650 leading scientists “scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.”  Their comments will be released in a Senate minority report which represents “12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.