Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming Scam’

The global warming scam keeps getting slapped down, but this idiot in the White House thinks it’s a threat to national security and is responsible for the rise of Boko Haram.
The stupid is strong in this man.

The Real Denialism

All reasonable Americans—this statement is true by definition—scoffed in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama, having just clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, proclaimed: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

It’s been only a fraction of a generation, but the president asserted yesterday that he had mischaracterized that moment. “The planet is getting warmer,” he claimed in a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy:

Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.

Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about 8 inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet.

Yes, the lucky cadets were treated to a presidential lecture on, in Obama’s words, “the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.”

via The Real Denialism – WSJ.

…so far.

I also have a new category thanks to this article.

“…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.”

via Climate scientist will say ‘global warming Nazis’ | The Daily Caller.

Global warming fraud. That’s what it is. It’s gone beyond scam. It’s charlatan.
Piss off ecotards.

Here’s the money quote (emphasis mine):

This comes from Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists

The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

By Maxim Lott

Measuring Global Warming

Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.”It’s a real problem … it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,” climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

via Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News.

The typical hysteria and predictions of enviromMENTALists continues to get traction despite the fact that not one of their doomsday predictions has come to fruition.

You would think the nursery rhyme Chicken Little would have sunk in by now.

What a miserable failure.

Here’s Walter Williams’ take on it.

Environmental Fear-Mongering Isn’t Just Silly, It Kills People

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a Forbes article “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies” (9/5/2012), wrote that her 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” led to a world ban on DDT use.

The DDT ban was responsible for the loss of “tens of millions of human lives — mostly children in poor, tropical countries — have been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors (birds). This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century.”

DDT presents no harm to humans and, when used properly, poses no environmental threat.

In 1970, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. . .. In a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.”

Prior to the DDT ban, malaria was on the verge of extinction in some countries.

via Environmental Fear-Mongering Isn’t Just Silly, It Kills People – Investors.com.

…an essential gas for life on earth.

This comes from the Wall Street Journal.

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.
By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER

Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a “pollutant” in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

via Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide – WSJ.com.

The only consensus is in the minds of the morons that espouse global warming is man made, or that it even exists in anything other than a natural occurrence within the earth’s atmosphere.

Anyone notice that the global warming morons have gotten less boisterous in their routine?

Climate Consensus? What Climate Consensus?
By Peter C Glover

The myths of popular science have a nasty habit of running ahead of the real story by a decade or two. They are difficult to dislodge. It has always been thus. Take the myth that global warming (GW) is today a feature of current global climate activity. Whatever the reason for it, GW hasn’t been happening for 16 years – and not a single computer model predicted it. Then there is the breaking news that the global sea ice area is above normal – and that in the midst of the Antarctic summer. Not exactly been mainstream news has it? But then, as both stories run counter to the prevailing consensus and popular myth, that’s not surprising.

There’s the myth peddled by David Attenborough that polar bears are threatened by extinction when it turns out they are actually thriving; along with stories that that ‘renewable’ energy is an economically viable energy-generating concept; that windmills can provide reliable, regular and cost-effective power demanded by modern grids and energy users; that electric cars make sense at all, given they can only get you from London to Oxford before their batteries expire requiring 16 hours re-charging, and … well, you get the picture. The nexus between green myth and a pro-alarmist mass media committed to falling for, and publicizing, them is plain enough. Which brings us to the big daddy in our age: the myth of still attempting to proclaim a ‘science consensus’ when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Back in the 90s I was an early ‘heretic’ on global warming. For me the facts and data just didn’t add up. But having spent years investigating the claims of huckster false prophets in the church for duping the gullible it increasingly became clear that today’s false prophets have donned white coats, exchanged crystal balls for computer modelling and take the public ‘shilling’ to do planet-saving research. But their chief message was the same: the end-is-nigh – unless you listen to me and do what I tell you. Science-writer Michael Crichton was the first to sum up this paradigm shift to wholesale faith in an environmental Grand Narrative that set the AGW prophetic belief-system rolling.

via Climate Consensus? What Climate Consensus? – Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune.

…one has to really love this Nazi propaganda. I mean UK global warming scam video.
No pressure…
Douche bags.

…that President Obama is a moron.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago and here he is promoting global warming. The EPA must be coming out with something so onerous to the economy that he has to jump out in front of it to dull the senses of the morons that voted for him.

There has been no aggregate warming since 1997. Once again, the MSM is AWOL.

Elections have consequences.

President Obama: ‘I am a firm believer that climate change is real’

President Barack Obama held his first postelection press conference today, Nov. 14, 2012, in the East room at the White House. The president took eight questions from the White House press corps; one of those questions was on the subject of Global Climate Change, and the President’s plan to “tackle the issue of climate change”.

Mark Landler, part of the White House press corps and a journalist for the New York Times, asked the President the following question on Global Climate Change.

“Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City, where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon?”

The president did not shy away from the question, saying, “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.”

More

Report: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’…

…is poised to destroy American jobs and force energy prices through the roof. If he is reelected, he’ll unleash the full list of job killing, energy spiking regulations that the EPA has held in check until after the election. You haven’t wondered why he hasn’t promised that global warming will end in his next term?
The EPA has got to be stopped! If Obama is reelected, then there is no hope for America’s future energy independence.

Obama’s EPA Plans for 2013
By S. Fred Singer

The November elections will determine the direction of US climate policy — and therefore also energy policy and the pace of economic growth: jobs, standards of living, budget deficits and inflation.  Obama has already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern — with all that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism (Solyndra).

By contrast, Romney is a climate skeptic — and Ryan has been quite outspoken: the perfect anti-Gore.  The science supports Romney-Ryan — notwithstanding the UN-IPCC, and the bulk of the climate scientists living high on the hog on government grants.

All of this emerged from campaign rhetoric — but it needs to be spelled out more clearly.  Note that Obama no longer promises to “heal the Earth and stop the rise of the oceans.”  He has also been uncharacteristically quiet about his efforts to “make electricity prices skyrocket.”  But there is more in store if he is re-elected and unleashes the full regulatory apparatus of the EPA.

…is not so rewarding apparently.
Here’s an essay from someone that recently left one of those “green” jobs that the liberals in this country are hell bent on forcing down everyone’s throats. It’s a fine example of liberal stupidity and the fact that green energy is for the detriment of man kind in order for it to prevail. 

Pay particular attention to the costs associated with green energy vs. the traditional coal, and hydroelectricity.

I had a green job
By Deborah Sloan

Mitt Romney has recently taken fire not only from the Obama campaign but even from some left-leaning Republicans, for his rightful criticism of Obama’s destructive “green jobs” programs.  Not only is Mr. Romney right to criticize these programs — and his position supported by many economic studies — but in fact the situation is even worse than anything suggested by these criticisms. Green jobs are destroying the abilities and spirits of a whole generation of engineers. I should know. I was one of those engineers.

In 2008 I completed my Masters in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford and took a “Green Job” with a solar company. Excitingly, it seemed to match the green rhetoric–to have potential to create the incredible value of cleaner, cheaper energy.

Unfortunately, the more I learned about my job and industry, the more I realized they were fundamentally flawed.

Management said we would be competitive with oil and gas once we manufactured panels for $1.00/watt. But as a mechanical engineer, I learned most of solar’s cost is not panels themselves but “balance of system” (BOS) components like DC to AC converters, wiring, and structural mounting, adding about $3.00/watt for a best-case total of $4.00/watt. Coal and hydroelectric systems cost as low as $2.10/watt and $1.00/watt, respectively. Ifound no evidence that solar’s BOS costs would decrease meaningfully.

More