hopperbach


Garbage in, garbage out

Much of the foundation for the U.N.’s claims about man-made global warming come from the computer models employed by their own climate panel, the IPCC. But what if the computer models are wrong? What if in fact some of the key variables used in their climate prediction software were grossly overstated?  The Science and Public Policy Institute brings us a report that makes just such an assertion:

WASHINGTON (7-15-08 ) – Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F.

That’s right folks, even a computer can be wrong if you program the wrong data into it. Here are some other key points made in Monckton’s paper:

  • The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
  • CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
  • Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
  • The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
  • The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
  • “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
  • Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
  • The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
  • It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
  • Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
  • In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The SPPI has provacatively titled their new article Proved: There is no climate crisis. Whether or not you agree with that claim, hopefully you will at least concede that the debate — contrary to what Al Gore and his pals at the U.N. like to insist — is definitely NOT over.

Advertisements


Global warming’s Gore’y details

al gore cartoon

On a historic night in February 2007 Al Gore’s much ballyhooed movie on climate change won an Oscar for “Best Documentary”. Gore of course, feigned reluctance to take the spotlight amid cheering throngs of celebs who had one by one began rising to their feet. But director Davis Guggenheim would have NONE of it! He emphatically gestured at our new savior of the ozone to get his butt on that stage and take his much deserved accolades like a man.

But the very next day, Gore faced his own inconvenient truth when the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that his home in Nashville was not so eco friendly. Lets just say his house was to energy what Rosie O’Donnell is to donuts. A red-faced Gore soon scrambled to take dramatic steps towards a more green household and a satisfied media soon dropped the issue.

So how has Gore fared since then? Not so well

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former vice president’s home energy use surged more than 10 percent, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before.

You see, Al Gore is what we call an opportunist. Upon emerging from his cave after a stint as a bearded hermit following his failed 2000 presidential bid, the now clean-shaven Gore was determined to re-invent himself. So he latched on to the one issue that would guarantee enthusiastic slaps on the back from the media, academia, and the public at large… green was to become Al’s new favorite color.

And green did indeed work for him… on so many levels:

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

At least TCPR’s Drew Johnson sees through all the political smog:

Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.

And THAT’s the story behind the story. You see, for Al Gore (or any politician) to want fame and fortune is not news. For him to be revealed as a hypocrite is also not news. The REAL news, as Johnson points out is that Al Gore by his actions clearly shows that he does not see global warming as a serious problem. In spite of all the impressive charts and animated swimming polar bears, Al knows in his heart of hearts that the danger is nowhere near what it is trumped it up to be. So he lives his life accordingly.

Now the question must be asked: if a washed up politician can exploit this issue for his own personal gain without believing the data, how much more so a government or an intergovernmental body? How much does Barack Obama really believe the hype? Or Ban Ki-moon? Could they also be peddling fear to gain more power and perks for themselves? Useful questions to ponder…



No problemo, IEA

Chins up, global warming do-gooders… now’s your chance to shine. Ready to save the world? The International Energy Agency has a plan… if you are up to the challenge:

TOKYO – The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a “energy revolution” that would greatly reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

“Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale,” IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Hey we saw that last one happen in a Roland Emmerich film… it MUST be true.

No this is not a story from The Onion and I promise I didn’t make this up. These are real figures in a real report that the IEA wants us to take seriously… and act upon.

If you are starting to see an agenda then you are making progress. See what I mean when I talk about personal freedom lost in the name of the “greater good”?

If you’re still on board with this “energy revolution” after reading this, here are some more details of how we can help:

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

Tshh. Easy. If all of us in the U.S. could agree to simultaneously downgrade our cable packages…

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually.

Daunting task for sure. But the U.S. is up to it. With all the illegal labor we have at our disposal, those suckers will go up fast.

Also…

Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.

Is that all? Just think, we could achieve a 25% reduction in carbon alone just by taking 5 less breaths per minute!

And in case you were wondering, here are the dire consequences we will face if we don’t act now:

…Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

This development is clearly not sustainable,” said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

And your requirements are sustainable, Dolf ?

This is laughable. And more than a little scary because if we get Barry in the Oval Office, we can be guaranteed that he’ll blindly and eagerly sign any environmental treaty the U.N. puts before his eyes in response to this data. No doubt with the full endorsement of those dufuses who consider a Powerpoint slideshow from a has-been politician to be all the evidence they need to throw their rights away…

Sovereignty… it was a fun little experiment while it lasted…

Again, I am NOT saying unequivocally that man-made global warming isn’t real. I’m saying that it is a theory that has caught the keen interest of politicians, pundits and bureaucrats worldwide. As a result of pressure and intimidation, the doors of debate have been slammed far too early on this issue. Consequently, we are now poised to make some of the most dramatic changes to policy, lifestyle and personal/financial freedom that we have probably ever made as a nation.

What if the “experts” and media doomsdayers are wrong folks? It’s happened before



“Warming up” to bigger government

Hold on to your offsets… our guardians of green in Congress are bringing new new global warming legislation to the table. But there is resistance:

Senators voted 74-14 to proceed to the bill, but immediately it became clear Republican opponents were not going to make it easy. A request by Democrats to begin considering substantive changes in the bill was blocked by GOP opponents until Wednesday at the earliest.

homer Mean old GOP!

The Senate measure, which has wide Democratic and some Republican support, would cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, cutting them by 18 percent by 2020 and by two-thirds by mid-century. It would specifically target refineries, power plants, factories and transportation for 70 percent reductions and make emissions allowances available to be traded in an open market.

70 percent? Sure, no prob Congress. Just a little rebuilding of major industries from the ground up oughta do it.

I may be dating myself here but… remember a tacky little show from the late 70’s called “Carter Country”? I’m reminded of the fat mayor on that show who often would dump an impossible task on an already overworked police chief saying “Handle it, Roy!” in a lilting voice before scampering off. This is Congress. They are really good at looking like they are doing something while dumping the responsibility on others… the mess that occurs later can always be blamed on those same others.

Let’s clear one thing up. The reason a lot of us conservatives have reservations about global warming legislation is NOT – as some of you may assume – because we are uncaring about our world. We care about it deeply – deeply enough, in fact, that we refuse to stand by and allow a bunch of emotionally charged dunderheads go off half cocked and ruin the quality of life we have in this amazing country and on this beautiful blue-green marble called earth. You see, Congress tends to do that a lot, make impassioned speeches and craft bills that take away more of our freedom while forcing businesses to spend exorbitant amounts of money on “fixes”. All this based upon data that is… get ready… inconclusive.

WHAT!!? What about Al Gore and his impressive Powerpoint chart on carbon dioxide levels? Great! Lets do look at that one a little closer. And in the process let’s look at what happens to respected scientists who have the nerve to question this and other data that is held out there as “proof”. I’ll let our good ol’ Libertarian friend, John Stossel walk you through it:

Get a better picture now? All we know at present is that the climate has been getting warmer. But there have been many such trends throughout history. The difference here is that libs have managed make man the villain this time around rather than… say… volcanoes or dinosaur farts. And by making arbitrary predictions suggesting that New York will become part of the Atlantic Ocean in the next 20 years, they can create panic and the sense of urgency to act: “We don’t have TIME to think! We must do something NOW… for the CHILDREN!”

Don’t get caught up in it, folks – and don’t just join the crowd to be hip. Think for yourselves, look at the data yourselves (ALL of it) and form your own opinions… it really is a liberating thing. And if you come to the conclusion that I have, pick up the phone, call the bonehead who is supposed to be representing you in Congress and make it clear that you’ll take away their job if they take away any more of your freedom.



Climate of fear

Remember how in the months following Hurricane Katrina we began to hear dire warnings of what was to come in 2006? Here is a sampling of what was being reported at the time:

From USA Today:

For this year’s storm season, which lasts six months and promises to be active, the corps will not be able to upgrade the 181 miles of levees that remained intact during Katrina.

From CBC News:

This year’s north Atlantic hurricane season will be “very active,” spawning eight to 10 hurricanes, the U.S.-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday.

From the New York Times:

Many experts view this hurricane season, which begins on June 1, with trepidation, and hope that the system is not put to a test like Hurricane Katrina before further improvements can be made.

From The Christian Science Monitor

With meteorologists predicting another severe round of hurricanes this summer, the US Army Corps of Engineers is hastily working to finish repairs to the New Orleans’ levee system by June 1 – the official start of hurricane season – calling the end product “stronger and better than before.”

From TerraDaily:

With the new hurricane season opening on June 1, experts predicted last week that as many as 16 named tropical storms could form this year, possibly six of them rising to Category 3 hurricane strength or higher.

The US Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for the dikes intended to protect low-lying New Orleans from floods, has failed to meet its self-imposed June 1 deadline to bring the levee system back up to pre-Katrina levels.

The media here was using one of their favorite tactics – creating drama by combining elements of two different stories. It’s boring to simply say the Corps of Engineers is working hard to repair the levees in New Orleans. But throw in some of the “expert” forecasts of the coming hurricane season and suddenly you can write THIS juicy headline: “Time Running Out as Workers Desperately Scramble to Fix New Orleans Levees: Hurricane Experts Predict Another Active Season“. See how it works? Neato!

Now, let’s contrast that to what they were saying in late 2006 as the hurricane season was wrapping up:

From CNN:

Defying predictions, the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season ended with a whimper rather than a bang on Thursday, without a single hurricane hitting U.S. shores.

From LiveScience:

MIAMI (AP) — The mild 2006 Atlantic hurricane season draws to a close Thursday without a single hurricane striking the United States — a stark contrast to the record-breaking 2005 season that killed more than 1,500 people and left thousands homeless along the Gulf Coast.

Nine named storms and five hurricanes formed this season, and just two of the hurricanes were considered major. That is considered a near-normal season — and well short of the rough season government scientists had forecast.

I would bring you more excerpts but they are much harder to find than the gloom-and-doom examples which preceded them. Stories where nothing happens just aren’t very interesting.

So what happened to all the hurricanes? Why were the experts wrong this time? Well, maybe it’s because they are pretty much wrong ALL the time. On Friday, the AP ran a revealing story which almost reads as a confession of their industry’s hunger for hype”

Each April, weather wizard William Gray emerges from his burrow deep in the Rocky Mountains to offer his forecast for the six-month hurricane season that starts June 1. And the news media are there, breathlessly awaiting his every word.

It’s a lot like Groundhog Day — and the results are worth just about as much.

“The hairs on the back of my neck don’t stand up,” ho-hums Craig Fugate, director of emergency management for Florida, the state that got raked by four hurricanes — three of them “major” — in 2004. When it comes to preparing, he says, these long-range forecasts “are not useful at all.”

So why run these stories at all if the predictions are usually incorrect? Because, the mainstream media doesn’t care if it’s correct — so long as the story fit’s into their doomsday template.

But a bigger question comes to mind if I may shift the topic a little… if the experts are wrong about what will happen in a few months, how can we believe them when they tell us what will happen in the next several years? Every day we are warned of the impending catastrophic effects that man-made global warming will bring to pass. But what makes these experts any more accurate about this than when they are predicting hurricanes?

An editorial by Steven Milloy that ran on FOXNews a couple of years back posed the same question:

Despite the vast collective expertise of NOAA scientists, immense quantities of atmospheric and oceanic data, and unprecedented computing power, NOAA failed miserably in predicting weather events a mere six months into the future – and reiterated those same ill-conceived predictions at mid-season.

Yet global warming alarmists, including those at NOAA, expect us to unthinkingly buy into their dire forecasts of global warming – predictions that extend 100 years or more into the future. Forecasting global climate change decades into the future can only be described as orders of magnitude more complex than forecasting an imminent, six month-long hurricane season.

Very good points. Those of you who have bought into this “debate is over” propaganda from Al Gore and other global warming advocates might want to sincerely ponder this. We are making laws, treaties and dramatic lifestyle changes based upon the predictions of the same experts who have trouble telling you whether it will rain on your cookout tomorrow afternoon. Maybe it’s time for more of us to step out of the growing chorus of doomsday voices and really examine the song that is being sung.

Granted it won’t be easy for you if you do. It has become very fashionable to ride the global warming bandwagon – so fashionable that it revived the career of a washed up ex-presidential candidate and turned him into a rock star overnight. If it’s the approval of your peers that you desire, global warming is a sure thing. Try ridiculing someone who is skeptical of man-made climate change and you’re certain to get some appreciative pats on the back. It’s hip to hang with this crowd.

But a much more useful endeavor would be to drum up the courage to seriously question what is being fed to you by pundits, politicians, celebrities and the status quo of climate experts. NOT necessarily reject it outright… just question it. Because whatever ends up being done about global warning will be very difficult to undo. Whatever personal freedoms are taken from you as the result of an environmental law or treaty will probably be forever gone even if the data they were based upon is later found to be faulty. Once a government takes power from you they are generally not so keen on giving it back. So it’s worth it to start thinking for yourself on this issue. And as you see from the hurricane stories above, the media isn’t going to be a whole lotta help…

This much is certain – regardless of which side turns out to be right the world will look a lot different ten or twenty years from now than it does today. Either the global warming alarmists will be right, which I guess means the Statue of Liberty will be underwater. OR the skeptics will be right in which case the statue will still be there but the liberty will be gone. The weather is changing folks…