Consensus Trumps Science

Ξ April 30th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

“Aliens Cause Global Warming”?

A lecture by Michael Crichton

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

January 17, 2003

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. (more…)


Oceans Cause Global Warming, Not CO2.

Ξ April 28th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

Hurricane Forecaster: Oceans Cause Global Warming, Not CO2

Friday, April 27, 2007

DENVER —  Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.

Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the U.S. Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide won’t produce more or stronger hurricanes.

He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.

Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state lawmakers, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

“They’re blaming it all on humans, which is crazy,” he said. “We’re not the cause of it.”

Many researchers believe warming is causing hurricanes to get stronger, while others aren’t sure.

Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created “almost an industry” that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.

He said research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models that cannot possibly take into account the hundreds of factors that influence the weather.

Gray said little-understood ocean currents are behind a decades-long warming cycle and disputed assertions that greenhouse gases could raise global temperatures as much as some scientists predict.

“There’s no way that doubling CO2 is going to cause that amount of warming,” he said.

Gray also said warming and cooling trends cannot go on indefinitely and believes temperatures are beginning to level out after a very warm year in 1998.

“We’re going to begin to see some cooling,” he said.



Carbon Credit Scam

Ξ April 28th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

(Remember, the most important feature of being a liberal is that you “feel” good about yourself and that at least you’re trying to do something, even if that something is a scam–JWO)

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organizations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2 billion by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4 billion in the same period. (more…)


Bob Speaks Volumes about Chuck

Ξ April 20th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |


(Chuck is one of them…..JWO)

Kerrey: 1% chance I’d run for Senate

WASHINGTON – Former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey recently tested the waters for a possible U.S. Senate bid, but he said Thursday evening that there was only a 1 percent chance that he would run again – and only if GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel didn’t run for re-election next year.

Kerrey asked his longtime political adviser, Paul Johnson, to gauge public opinion on him. That led to Democratic pollster Harrison Hickman’s sampling Nebraskans’ views with some telephone calls. Hickman didn’t conduct a full-fledged poll, Kerrey said.

Kerrey said he was told that the results were “the same old stuff. Some people like you, some people don’t.”

The former governor and two-term senator who decided not to seek re-election in 2000 said that the sampling won’t affect his judgment and that he will decide “very quickly” about the race.

He said it was “extremely unlikely” that he would run, noting that he’s happy with his job as president of the New School University in New York City and his life there.

“I’m 99 percent certain I’m not going to do this,” he said.

Still, Kerrey has talked it over with his wife, Sarah, who told him that she’d support him if he wanted to run for Senate. He also has discussed the possibility with two key Nebraska Democratic politicians, Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, who is considering entering the Senate race, and Sen. Ben Nelson.

Kerrey said he would run only if Hagel decided not to seek re-election.

“If Chuck runs, I’d write him a check,” Kerrey said.


Gun Control: A Historical Perspective

Ξ April 20th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Guns |

Gun Control: A Historical Perspective

by Benedict D. LaRosa, June 1994

Gun control is an issue which never stands on its own. By this I mean that the motives behind it are rarely those expressed by its advocates. There is almost always a hidden agenda.

On rare occasion, those proposing the confiscation of weapons are candid about their motives. Such was the case in Japan in 1588 when the Shogun Hideyoshi disarmed the populace during what came to be called the Great Sword Hunt. He decreed: “The possession of unnecessary implements [of war] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to foment uprisings.”

The motivation behind gun control is much the same today; it’s just that our politicians are not as candid as Hideyoshi.

The Japanese populace has been disarmed ever since.

The Anglo-American tradition is much different. But before I discuss our own heritage, I’d like to tell you a little-known but tragic story of a people who disarmed for the sake of peace. (more…)


The Church of Global Warming

Ξ April 19th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

From the Pew to the Pulpit: Inside the Church of Global Warming

By Paul A. Ibbetson

Friday, April 13, 2007

Al Gore, Maurice StrongWalk carefully, I say unto you, for thou art on holy ground. This was the rude awakening that I received when I entered the global warming debate. It would also be the warning that I would forward to anyone wishing to enter the debate over the validity of man made global warming. I stepped into this discussion after watching the similarities between the scare tactics of the global warmers and what I had seen of the scientific community’s certainty of global cooling back in the 1970s. When ex-vice president Al Gore started saying, in a time of war, that global warming was a more important issue for us all to focus upon than international terrorism, I placed even more focus on the issue. With the help of the scientific community, those who have reservations on the magnitude of reported man made global warming, I wrote two compelling articles meant to spark further debate on where we should prioritize this issue when the nation is at war. I was literally assailed by the fanatics of the global warming community. The Salt Spring News pen pusher wished to enlighten me to the fact that Al Gore must be brilliant because his theatrical release, which I consider to be a movie equivalent to a 5th grade slide show, An Inconvenient Truth, was doing financially well even though it was only being aired in seventy-seven theatres.

Much harsher criticism would be thrust upon me by Harvey Leifert, the Public Information Manager for the American Geophysical Union. Leifert would take offense with a cited paper source that came from a survey of the American Geophysical Union. Leifert stated that the selection of the survey question did not reflect a complete picture of their survey. What was interesting to see was the fervor in which the Public Information Manager would condemn a skeptic. Though he completely side-stepped addressing the main argument that I deduced, that Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was akin to a low stakes shell game. His rage over the fact that I would challenge man made global warming literally made spittle fly off his letter to the editor. Within moments, little smoggy bloggers from Canada, whose creed must be ‘We don’t think for ourselves, we leave that to the professionals,’ would jump to the aid of the American Geophysical Union and firmly ensconce me in their ‘Halls of Shame’. This anger, which goes beyond the realm of debate, leads me to a new conclusion as to what motivates the majority of the global warming community. What may have started as the observance of science and environmentalism has now progressed to the level of cultish religion. (more…)


Global Warming is about Fear, not Facts.

Ξ April 19th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

Caving in on global warming

By Stephen Moore

As a great public service, someone should send a copy of Michael Crichton’s new book “State of Fear” to the chief executive officer of every Fortune 500 company in America. Mr. Crichton is not a scientist, but he understands science and how to separate out fact from fiction.

His book undresses the environmental alarmists for a lack of evidence to support their apocalyptic claims of global warming and does so with impressive documentation.

“State of Fear” has become a best-seller precisely at the time business leaders across the nation are capitulating to an environmentalist global warming agenda that could severely cripple the U.S. economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs — to say nothing of denting corporate profits.

In recent months, dozens of major Fortune 500 companies have waved the white flag of surrender to radical environmental groups by signing on to the antigrowth agenda on global climate policy. Like prisoners who have come to admire their captors, many corporate leaders have agreed to lobby beside the very interest groups that would put them out of business. (more…)


Global Warming Fanaticism

Ξ April 19th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |


A final word on global warming

By Anthony Livingston Hall

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

The global-warming movement is taking on all of the features of a Christian crusade – complete with its self-appointed pope, Al Gore.

Alas, I remain a Doubting Thomas. In fact, I have challenged, if not defied, the gospel of global warming in such open and notorious fashion that, if Gore’s judgment day were tomorrow, I would go straight to hell.

Nevertheless, after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report a week ago today, which zealous environmentalists are now touting as “the final word on global warming”, I felt obliged to respond.

And if you know what a Faustian proposition it is to critique the Bible, then you’ll appreciate why this article is a bit long, though hopefully not long-winded. (more…)


Scientist: Global Warming not caused by humans

Ξ April 19th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Global Warming Myth |

Scientist: Global Warming not caused by humans

Thursday, April 19, 2007


Times Staff Writer

Roy Spencer says we don’t know yet how changes are happening

MADISON – Roy Spencer is speaking up about his belief that Earth is not headed toward a global warming disaster.

Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former NASA scientist, said he knows he’s in the minority with his opinions, but he doesn’t believe manmade influences are causing catastrophic climate changes.

“We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves,” Spencer told the Republican Women of Madison during a lunch meeting Wednesday.

Spencer contends there is not yet enough known about the Earth’s atmosphere to understand exactly what occurs naturally to stabilize the earth’s climate.

“I don’t think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don’t know for sure how it happens,” Spencer said.

Developing new energy technology is the only way to know for sure, he said, because he believes the existing climate models are too sensitive. 

He said everything about the climate is tied to precipitation systems. But the climate models don’t consider precipitation efficiency. However, he said the little evidence that exists shows precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming.

“The air you’re breathing right now was, in the last few days, part of a precipitation system,” he said.

Spencer said the fears about global warming have people wondering whether something should be done now to stop it. 

“That’s the precautionary principle, and it makes no sense because we don’t live our lives that way,” Spencer said. “Everything in life has risks and benefits; we could die from eating food.”

Energy is needed by humanity, Spencer said while poking fun at Al Gore and other environmentalists who talk about conservation.

“Most of us are already doing what we can to conserve, but it won’t have any impact on global warming,” Spencer said. 

Two weeks ago, he testified in a congressional hearing on global warming. Next month, he’ll make presentations at the White House and to top evangelical leaders on his research.

“It’s a busy field and keeps me awake,” Spencer said.


Who Pays the Taxes?

Ξ April 18th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

For calendar year 2004:

The top 1% paid 36.89% of all income taxes (earned 19.00% of the income) The top 5% paid 57.13% of all income taxes (earned 33.45%). The top 10% paid 68.19% (earned 44.35%). The top 25% paid 84.86% (earned 66.13%). The top 50% paid 96.70% (earned 86.58%). The bottom 50% paid 3.30% of all income taxes (earned 13.42%). The top 1% is paying more than 11 times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50% combined!

Income level split points (AGI):

Top 1% = $328,049

Top 5% = $137,056

Top 10% = $99,112

Top 25% = $60,041

Top 50% = $30,122

Bottom 50% = less than $30,122

*Data covers calendar year 2004, not fiscal year 2004 – and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security


Next Page »