Two Views of Global Warming: The Pogrom and the Skeptic's Guide

The Pogrom
"pogrom - n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group"

A letter, dated October 27, 2006, was sent to ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson. The letter came from John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe, both U.S. senators.

If an individual had written and sent such a letter, he would be indicted for extortion and blackmail.

The letter condemns ExxonMobil’s support of scientific researchers and organizations that dispute global warming. The senators actually introduce a word into the argument - climate change "deniers" and "denial strategy." These terms are applied to anyone who disputes any of the following: a) Global warming is happening; b) Global warming will result in catastrophe; c) Global warming is due to mankind’s activities; d) Global warming is a fact, not a theory.

(The use of the term denier is important. It tries to evoke a comparison to the term "Holocaust denier," one of those people who refuse to acknowledge that the extermination of six million Jews ever happened. Obviously there's no comparison between debatable science and photos of corpses. However, setting the terminology is an important part of a propaganda war. Look for the word "denier" to become more prevalent.)

In this letter, the senators insist that ExxonMobil 1) Immediately stop funding anyone who disputes or questions global warming findings and admit that "global warming" is a fact; 2) "Come clean" to the public about its support for these people; 3) Repudiate all the information that has been discovered by these people; 4) Start giving money to the pro-global warming groups.

The senators even go so far as to compare ExxonMobil to the tobacco industry. This is a not-so-subtle reminder to Tillerson of what the government can do to a company or an industry if it so chooses.

Translated from bureaucrat-ese, the letter boils down to this: "Say what we want you to say, and give us your money, or we will destroy you." This letter and maneuver is so outrageous that even some of the Washington inside-the-Beltway crowd is tsk-ing over the sheer gall these senators displayed.

The most frightening aspect of this is that the pro-global warming people don’t even want the debate, and will use the politicians that they have in their pocket to quash our First Amendment rights. They want to completely eradicate those who oppose them.

The Skeptic's Guide

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works just released a 64-page booklet entitled "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming." The book is available online for download.

In this booklet, almost all of the major claims of the pro-global warming people are proven to be in dispute or as completely wrong. Some of the claims disputed are the "hockey stick" theory; the statement that "90’s was the hottest decade on record;" that the polar ice caps are melting, and much more. The booklet gives links to all supporting documentation.

The main thrust of the booklet is how the media have chosen the pro-global warming side of the argument, and provide a completely one-sided picture in their coverage. (What a surprise.)

The hero of this little booklet is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The full text of a speech he gave to the Senate is presented.

Senator Inhofe said it best: "The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice president Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve."

It Takes a While

Gallup just released a poll indicating that more Americans than ever – 44% -- believe that the threats the media report about global warming are overexaggerated. In the decade since Gallup started tracking this topic, the percent of Americans who believe the media is correct, or is underestimating the threat, is also at its lowest level ever.

There is a distinct political bent here. Republicans are more likely to be cynical about media coverage of the subject – that’s a shock – than Democrats. However, the increase in the number of disbelievers is from the population of independents. Democrats tend to have a certain, um, inflexibility of thought.

A comment about Gallup’s report, however. This is a quote: “Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change.”

That passage illustrates how poor reporting can mar otherwise good information. You can accept that “global warming” is real – the average temperature over the last century has gone up a bit less than one degree Centigrade; that is, the globe has warmed. Accepting that point does not concede that 1) Warming is caused by humans; or 2) The effects will destroy us.

The meeting in New York City referenced is the International Conference on Climate Change. Debunking the science – or more precisely, the lack of rigorous scientific standards – used by global warming alarmists should be the job of every scientist. I’ll repeat a point I’ve made before: When did “global warming” become “climate change?” Could it be because the earth has not experienced warming for several years, has perhaps even cooled? If you call it climate change, then you can use any sort of weather to prove your point. Global warming actually requires warming.

Again, another previously-mentioned point: If their science was up to snuff, they wouldn’t have to cheat; e.g., the discredited “hockey stick” graph; their practice of ignoring the “Little Ice Age;” the almost unknown fact that increases in CO2 gas follow warmer temperature, not cause it. Yet now, government interference into businesses is based on their CO2 emissions.

The ICCC’s purpose is to allow a discussion of the side of the scientific argument that the media and the government don’t want you to hear. Despite the claims by global warming profiteer Al Gore, the argument is most definitely not over.

The Slippery Green Slope

The government's prosecutorial powers are vast and, more importantly, flexible. Many crimes or regulatory violations can be prosecuted because they involve "interstate commerce" in some way.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has upheld decisions based on this clause for violations that otherwise had no bearing on "interstate commerce." Note: Some of the decisions were the right thing to do, but not based on an expansive definition of "commerce."

One landmark case involved an Atlanta hotel that refused to rent rooms to blacks. The court ruled that this practice interfered with interstate commerce and that the owners could be prosecuted under federal law. Another decision involved a California law that prosecuted anyone who brought an out-of-state "indigent" into the state. The state law was overturned by the SCOTUS because it affected "interstate commerce."

Although the SCOTUS in recent years has shown a tendency to interpret the law so as to actually involve commerce that is interstate, the precedent has already been set. An expansive interpretation of a law or regulation is the prerogative of the government.

Recently there has been a flood of legislation introduced to fight "global warming." (Read 80% of my previous posts if you want to know my opinion on global warming.) Polar bears have been put on the "threatened species" list, not because there's a shortage of polar bears, but because of the threat that global warming supposedly poses to their habitat.

Now there's a story headlined "Obesity Contributes to Global Warming." Given the broad and spreading interpretation of laws shown previously by the courts, it's not unreasonable to anticipate future prosecution of criminal charges against people the government deems overweight, because of their violation of "global warming" laws.

As with the "interstate commerce" clause, global warming laws can be expanded to prosecute any type of offense, based on what someone, somewhere says contributes to global warming. Politicians (including judges) pander to public opinion constantly, and lack the moral courage to resist the latest political fad whether it makes sense or not.

The global warming theorists have inserted themselves like ticks under the skin of politicians. The regulation of exhaust emissions by automobiles is the least of our worries these days. Soon, Americans will have every aspect of their lives controlled because of craven politicians and global warming profiteers.

Global Warming and Uri Geller

Uri Geller is a psychic who became famous in the 1970's due to television appearances where he seemed able to read other people's thoughts, start stopped watches and -- most famously -- bend spoons using the power of his mind. He has always insisted that his powers are real, not simply tricks.


Various skeptics have debunked Geller's tricks, and he has consistently failed when placed under strictly controlled conditions. He has even been caught cheating on video. Despite all this, Geller continues to insist on his legitimacy.


Uri Geller may indeed have genuine psychic powers. However, the fact that he has cheated, and that he failed under strictly controlled conditions, make you doubt that conclusion.


Similarly, global warming* may turn out to be the catastrophe that alarmists insist it is. So far, though, much of the research that supposedly supports that conclusion has been either a) faulty; b) misrepresented; or c) manipulated. Like believing in Uri Geller's powers, believing the truthfulness and accuracy of the reports of global warming is hard when you know they cheated.


The Reasons
The first question that comes to mind about something this important is Why? Why would supposedly ethical scientists and politicians try to deceive the populace?


Money. Since 1993 more than $80 billion has been spent on global warming research. Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting part of the $6.5 billion in research grants that foundations, corporations, and US government programs have budgeted for global warming in 2007. Politicians cement relationships with activists who support reelection campaigns and can rename $14 billion in "alternative energy" pork into ethical "planetary protection." It gives new meaning to the label of being "green."


Status. Besides the social acceptance by their green colleagues, scientists who tout global warming doom ("Climate change to flood New York City") increase their likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories. Politicians get better press and can assume a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who is not as green.


The Research
Flawed science. Henk Tennekes was the director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. A skeptic of the global warming research, he argued that there were inherent limits on climate models scientists were basing their conclusions on, that the world was far too complex to be replicated. The best legitimate predictability models can now only reach up to 36 hours. The predictions for the "next 100 years" are based on cumulative day-by-day projections -- which are impossible.


Flawed statistics. The so-called "hockey stick" graph, established by Michael Mann, supposedly shows that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. A congressional energy and commerce committee asked Dr. Edward Wegman to head a team to assess the validity of the research that resulted in this graph. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association.


Dr. Wegman's conclusion? "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.


TO BE CONTINUED


* "global warming" in these discussions is defined as "man-made catastrophic climate change."

Other People Say Smart Stuff VII

Mark Alexander has written another in the growing list of articles elucidating the growing realization among informed citizens that manmade global warming, and Al Gore's claim to enviro-nazi sainthood, are about to be revealed for the shams they are.

One excerpt:

For instance, Gore insists that the increased incidence of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought and other weather phenomena is the direct result of global warming.

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray takes exception: "The degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes," he says, "is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms."

In a recent issue of Discover Magazine, Gray, described by Discover's editors as one of "the world's most famous hurricane experts," wrote, "This human-induced global-warming thing ... is grossly exaggerated. ... I'm not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was global cooling in the middle '40s to the early '70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical ... about this global-warming thing. But no one asks us."

The Carbon Lie

All three Presidential contenders -- McCain, Clinton and Obama -- vow to "do something" about carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in an effort to prevent global warming.

The government will spend our money to enforce a cap-and-trade system, in which businesses buy and sell carbon credits. The cap-and-trade system will supposedly prevent global warming. The leading cap-and-trade bill, S. 2191 (sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner) will increase federal revenue by $1.2 TRILLION dollars over just the first 10 years according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Al Gore and others purchase carbon offsets -- sometimes from themselves -- to justify not changing their lifestyle, aka "carbon footprint." These carbon offsets supposedly will prevent global warming.

In all these instances, Americans will pay more for food, energy and other necessities, while at the same time having less take-home pay because of higher taxes (those extra taxes, of course, used to fight global warming.)

Here's the big secret:

Higher CO2 levels do not cause higher temperatures. Higher CO2 levels follow higher temperatures.

The best argument is here.

In Al Gore's movie, he carefully avoids saying that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming. He describes the relationship as "complex." With this fancy verbal footwork, it's likely that Gore knows the truth. He profits, of course, from the CO2 panic.

Besides nailing every global warming alarmist you talk to -- and oh, how I wish I could have discussed the matter with the IPCC spokesperson that was in Lubbock a few months ago -- you may be wondering what you can do about this craziness.

First, we need to work hard to defeat the stupid Lieberman-Warner bill. Go here to let your Senators know that you do not want another boondoggle of a government program. Second, engage in every debate, every blog, every public forum you can. Popular sentiment must change before this is quashed completely.

Good policy based on good science is acceptable to me. Global warming regulations have neither.

Global Warming and Uri Geller (continued)

Global warming* alarmists are like those "true believers" who honestly think that psychic star Uri Geller has real powers, despite the fact that a) He has repeatedly failed to prove his powers under strictly controlled conditions, and b) He has been caught cheating. Their desire to believe overrides any common sense.


Global Warming Charlatanism
Misrepresentation of findings. Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory was a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world.


He contributed again to the "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. And he was invited to contribute to the IPCC's "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, Landsea's specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007.


In October, 2004, the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited Landsea's contribution -- was to participate in a press conference. The title of the press conference was "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." None of Landsea's work substantiated this claim. Nobody's had.


Landsea tried to contact Trenberth to clarify the scientific truth: No proven correlation between hurricanes and global warming. To Landsea's dismay, the press conference proceded, with the media drooling over the flashy headline possibilities.


Landsea resigned from the IPCC's report, in protest over the politicization and misrepresentation of scientific findings. You can read his story in his own words in his "Open Letter to the [Scientific] Community." Unfortunately, other scientists, eager for social status and funding, stepped in to support the bogus claims made by politicians.


The Big Question
How valid is the global warming alarmists' argument if they have to misrepresent and lie to achieve their goals?




* "global warming" in these discussions is defined as "man-made catastrophic climate change."

Global Warming Fraud Exposed

Okay, I wanted to let this story mature a bit before I commented on it. In a nutshell: a hacker obtained e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research center.

The unguarded e-mails suggest a couple of things. First, that global warming alarmist scientists around the world manipulated data to support their contention that mankind is responsible for global warming which result in global disaster. One e-mail refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline” (in global temperature.)

Other documents indicate a conspiracy to intimidate and/or blackmail editors at science journals into refusing to publish articles from global warming skeptics. The point that skeptics are "not published enough" in scientific journals has been one of the main arguments made by global warming alarmists. One excerpt:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

One article asks if this is "the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming." Don't count on it. Once politicians get a whiff of a chance to control and tax citizens, it's hard to get them to face reason. What should be an earthquake in the scientific world will likely not get much play in the mainstream media.

All Things Warm and Wonderful

A quick catch-up on some of the recent news on global warming.....

In a recent column by Bill Steigerwald, we find a few interesting facts: The Arctic ice cap, represented as melting so much that New York would be under water, and hapless polar bears were drowning, is now at nearly normal levels, and one expert says it's thicker than usual in some spots.

Another researcher, California meteroologist Greg Watts, finds that 70% of NASA's groundweather measuring sites fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc. These 1200+ sites are used to measure the "official" average annual temperature of the United States.

This news has been very under-reported in the US Media.


Real Scientific Minds
Global warming scientists who use the scientific method are starting to fight back. More than 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. (The complete list can be seen at www.oism.org/pproject.)

The International Conference on Climate Change is meeting this week in New York City. Its topic is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" and according to the announcement, "More than 400 scientists, economists and experts will meet ... to challenge the claim that global warming is a 'crisis.'"

Common sense on this issue seems to be gaining traction.


Proof that Cable Started Off Right
John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore on this whole business of global warming being a hoax. In an interview on Fox News, Coleman said, "I see absolutely no evidence that CO2, carbon dioxide, is causing any warm-up in temperatures. I don't think it's happening. I'm asking the question: If Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing is invalid -- isn't really happening -- and he goes ahead and sells these carbon credits for millions of dollars, is he committing financial fraud? That is the question."

And he goes even further. Read more about it here.

Our side is winning.

Global Warming Irony

Recently, Jeff Jacoby wrote a column entitled "Brrr - Where Did Global Warming Go?" He cited recent cold weather phenonema: record snowfall in New Hampshire, snow for the first time in 89 years in Buenos Aires, Australia had its coldest ever June -- as evidence that the global warming alarminsts (featuring Al Gore) are wrong.

Jacoby quotes scientists who repeat the notion that solar activity is the key element in global warming, and that the earth's recent warming trend may have peaked.

"Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change."

The True Colors of a Global Warming Propagandist

Al Gore proved the weakness of his position on global warming in his recent appearances before the Senate and House Environment & Public Works Committees.

First, Gore demanded that he be granted an unprecedented thirty minute statement before the members could ask questions.

Next, Gore refused to abide by the traditional rule whereby witnesses who appear before a Congressional committee are required to submit statements 48 hours in advance before their appearance. Out of respect for his position as a former Senator and former Vice President, the Senate agreed to require only 24 hours advance notice. Gore ignored this deadline, instead submitting his statement one minute before his appearance in the House, and just hours before his appearance in the Senate.

When Senator James Inhofe, the leading anti-alarmist in Congress, and an expert on global warming science himself, asked Gore questions, Gore tried to filibuster so he wouldn't have to really provide answers. The Democrats tossed softballs so Gore could pedant some more.

It is clear from Gore's actions that he did not want a serious debate over global warming, especially against a prepared opponent who would skewer him in front of the cameras.

What he wanted was a stage where he could spout his propaganda under the guise of "official statements." If Gore really had evidence, he would have enjoyed the give-and-take of a serious debate, especially in the brightly-lit arena of a Congressional committee hearing.

Get ready for July 7, a "day of persuasion" about global warming, according to Gore. Public opinion has been shifting, and Gore is about to lose his lucarative business selling carbon credits to fools. Let that be a lesson: Never mess with a Democrat's money.

The Debate Ain't Over Yet, Al

John Stossel started his column "Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet" with a reference to his other job:

Recently on "20/20," I said "give me a break" to Al Gore for
claiming that the global-warming debate is over and suggesting that all dissenters were in it for the money. I interviewed independent scientists who say Gore is wrong.

In this standout column, Stossel also adds a link to the Science and Public Policy Institute, which prominently displays on its website an article titled ""35 Inconvenient Truths: The Errors in Al Gore's Movie."

Stossel cites experts who criticize the UN's attempt to promote global warming alarmism. "Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science," says Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute. The scientific process ought to be left to play itself out with as little political bias as possible. Politically influenced research is poison to science.

Part of the problem is the IPCC itself. Reiter points out, "It's the inter-governmental panel on climate change. It's governments who nominate people. It's inherently political. Many of the scientists are on the IPCC because they view global warming as a problem that needs to be fixed. They have a vested interest."

Stossel also cites a member of the UN's "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC) who disputes the so-called "consensus" view and reiterates the argument that trying to control CO2 emissions (for the purpose of slowing global warming) is ineffective and a waste of time.

This should be must-reading for everyone, but especially for those who want to clobber those blockheads who insist that the "global warming debate is over" -- blockheads like Al Gore.

Framing the Argument

One trick often used in debate is "framing the argument." To frame the argument is to take a position that assumes certain facts, then building on those. The old trick question of "How long has it been since you quit beating your wife?" fits into this category.

Many times when I’m arguing a point with someone, they will use this tactic, and when I challenge the basic assumption, they act outraged, resorting to epithets, comments on my intelligence, etc. I’m a chessplayer, however; I understand that my position, whether in a game of chess or a debate with a political foe, must be as strong as possible if I am to win.

Which brings me to global warming - or more precisely, climate changes caused by mankind that carry negative consequences. (When I use the term "global warming" from here on out, this is the definition I mean.)

In his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore says (or so it has been reported; I haven’t seen the movie, and don’t think I will.) that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

Not true. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

A key point to remember, regardless of what you hear or read: Global warming is a theory, not a fact, and it has been disputed by many, many qualified scientists. One example is a petition organized by Frederick Seitz (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

Global warming alarmists want to start the debate just after the "no longer a debate" comment. I move the debate back one step - and make them admit that their whole stance is based on a disputed theory.

The proponents of "global warming" insist on tighter governmental controls on even more aspects of our lives. I oppose this. Contrary to what has been suggested, this does not mean that I’m for dirty air, dirty water, or that I want to kill the planet.

However, what is happening is that someone else’s eccentricities are being forced on me, in the name of an unproven theory. I reject this outright, and insist that those who would impose themselves into my life provide a more convincing argument.

The environmentalist whackos’ position is hypocritical. They insist on doing away with our use of fossil fuels in favor of so-called "clean" energy, while on the other hand they oppose nuclear energy, a proven clean energy source. How do they reconcile these two opposing stances? Could it be that their goal is not a clean environment after all, but is instead to force me to alter my lifestyle in favor of theirs?

I challenge their basic assumptions, and every point after; however, I’m open-minded, and willing to change my position.

But they better have a good argument.

The Perfect Problem

In America, trends tend to start in California. Both good and bad ideas often originate there, and the rest of the country tries to catch up.

Now Los Angeles Country transit officials, to fight global warming, want to add a new tax onto the fees and taxes that motorists already pay.

From the "Desert Dispatch" opinion piece: "Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions." The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat (surprise!) and author of Assembly Bill 2558.

Again, from the piece: "Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be."

Some points to take away from the story: 1) All the hubbub is over computer models. The supposed disasters have not been confirmed with real-world applications at all. I previously wrote about the failure of computer modeling here and here. Real world examples? Al Gore's photo of the "stranded" polar bears in his movie was deceptive at best, and the Arctic ice cap is pretty much normal.




2) What's the ideal temperature? At what temperature would the global warming alarmists stop their hysteria? It's the perfect Liberal problem: one without a solution.

Other People Say Smart Stuff IV

Dr. Thomas Sowell is the smartest man in America. Among other accomplishments, he holds a Ph.D in economics and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

He has written a series of articles entitled "Global Hot Air." In these articles he has so far pointed out that

• The list of so-called "consensus of scientists" includes everything from "nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further."
• Many distinguished climatologists who have real credentials oppose the concept of "manmade global warming."
• "There has been a full court press to convince the public that 'everybody knows' that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living."
• The media present sensational and inaccurate headlines and stories to promote the idea of "manmade global warming."
• The big hurricane season in 2005 was touted in the media as caused by, and proof of, global warming. Predictions were that 2006 would be even worse. The fact that there was practically no hurricane season in 2006 went unmentioned.

Read Sowell's columns. He's smart and articulate.

Global Warming Goes *Poof*

More and more scientists are "coming out" with their rebuttal of the manmade global warming scam. Apparently several consecutive years of global cooling indicates that solar activity, not man's activity, is the primary reason for the planet's temperature.

Where are the global warming alarmists now? I feel the need to rhetorically slap them around. And shouldn't this new evidence put a damper on global warming legislation?

UN's Global Warming group: "You gonna believe us, or your lying eyes?"

Breitbart (among others) writes that the United Nations climate panel's report may not be as objective as they want us to believe.

"An exhaustive United Nations report that claimed with 95% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming left out data that found the planet has stopped warming over the last 15 years, because it did not fit with the climate change agenda it wanted to advance." 

An earlier draft of the United Nations report, which was not used, acknowledged its climate models “do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.” In other words, reality slapped their predictions in the face and took its lunch money.

As the UK's Sun News says, "The issue is important because if the Earth is not warming as greenhouse gas emissions rise, it strikes at the heart of the theory of man-made global warming and suggests natural factors may be the greatest influence on climate."

Cool News About Global Warming

A recent press release from "The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" detailed how many former "pro global warming" scientists have changed their minds, and are now skeptics.

Dr. David Evans, a mathematician and engineer who formerly did carbon counting for the Australian government, gave a credible, logical reason for his conversion:

“I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog.

“But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.

“As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”

The List

Other experts quoted in the article include Dr. Claude Allegre, a top French geophysicist; geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta; Dr. Nir Shaviv, a top Israeli scientist; Dr. Tad Murty, former Science Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada; Dr. David Bellamy, UK botanist; Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist at the University of Auckland, NZ; meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson; Hans H.J. Labohm, global warming author and economist; paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottawa; physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw; paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa; environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa...

You get the idea. There's a lot of 'em, and they have very impressive credentials.

Other People Say Smart Stuff VI

Some excerpts from William Rusher's latest column, "The Global Warming Hysterics Strike Again":

"Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid 'scientists' (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings."

"The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

"Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

"The traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," ...is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows."

About that "consensus" on manmade global warming....

Often global warming alarmists will argue as though the science on manmade global warming is settled, that a mere handful of kooks disagree with their conclusion, and that few, if any, reputable scientists disagree with it.  The editor of "Physics and Society," a publication of the American Physics Society, wrote these words:

There is a considerable presence in the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.