FReepmail me to get on or off
Climate Research News
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Yep! Greenland is Ice and Iceland is Green!
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
NUTS!
“Why was the land that today is characterized as a huge icecap named Greenland?”
Viking disinformation. The same reason Iceland got it’s misnomer.
My answer to global warming is to cite the three Ice Ages that covered most of the northern hemisphere with glaciers. The most recent was about 20,000 years ago. We see ample evidence that these glaciers were here, but they are obviously no longer around. For this to have happened there had to have been some massive global cooling to form these glacier worldwide AND some massive global warming to have melted them. None of this could in anyway be attributed to man. Therefore it is inescapable that there is some mechanism that produces massive global cooling and global warming on a planetary scale that dwarfs even Al Gore’s prophecies of doom that cannot be attributed in anyway to CO2 or man. So explain this climate change mechanism and why isn’t it that the fluctuations in climate we see today aren’t just part of these natural cycles?
|
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
Thailand?
We took our young nephews to see a 3-D feature, ‘Under The Sea’ a few weeks back.
The VERY FIRST THING out of the chute was a statement to the effect that the beautiful Great Barrier Reef off of Australia’s coast didn’t exist for millions and millions of years, but when it started, it grew up off of an old, DEAD coral reef.
Toward the end of the movie then had about 15 minutes of showing how the Great Barrier Reef was being destroyed by you and me. Yes, YOU and ME! It’s all our fault! Nature has NOTHING to do with it.
When we left the movie Husband said to me, “Don’t EVEN say it! I know what you’re going to say!” LOL!
It’s maddening!
The same thing with our GORGEOUS Great Lakes that we are blessed to live among. If it weren’t for NATURE changing the landscape, we wouldn’t have all those glorious hundreds of millions of gallons of fresh water to support life here.
Gee. Wonder how much of that is MY fault? Grrrrr!
I’ve been preaching this for years to all the Global Warming/Climate Change nuts. Farley Mowat in his book “Farfarers” mentions this as well.
Obama Mulls Ramming CO2 Bill Through Congress In Budget
Last update: 3/11/2009 12:19:38 PM
By Ian Talley
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)—Democratic leaders - including U.S. President Barack Obama’s top budget official - are considering a procedural tactic that could give them the power to ram a controversial climate change and energy bill through Congress.
The administration and Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hope to avoid obstruction by the Republicans and centrist Democrats who fear the potential economic impact of legislation to ax greenhouse gas emissions.
The tactic is being discussed because of the dramatic impact of the bill: collection of “climate revenues” from a proposed cap-and-trade system could represent a major source of future revenue for the federal government.
Democratic leaders are considering a process in the Senate known as “budget reconciliation,” meant to fine-tune the government’s expenditures and revenues later in the year, which needs only 51 votes compared to the standard 60 needed for contentious legislation.
Some leaders see the alternative as an option of last-resort. Yet even having this option under consideration is raising the ire of many lawmakers and reveals how serious Obama is about passing a bill that axes greenhouse gas emissions.
“Reconciliation is not the first place we would go, but we’re at the beginning of the discussion and aren’t going to take anything off the table at this point,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag told Dow Jones Newswires Tuesday after a budget hearing in the Capitol.
An aide with a senior Democrat said lawmakers are considering the option simply because “we want to get it passed, that’s our strategy.” Obama will face more than a handful of Democrats who’ve already voiced objections to the president’s stringent climate change proposal.
In Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget outlined earlier this month, the administration said it expected to start collecting “climate revenues” from a cap-and-trade system in 2012. Based on a very conservative price estimate of $20 a ton, Obama hopes to glean at least $646 billion by 2020 from the program, which would represent a significant future source of revenue for the federal government.
Those revenues would be raised by a 100% auction of carbon credits - the right to emit greenhouse gases - but only around $15 billion a year would go towards funding low-carbon energy technologies, according to the Obama plan.
A raft of senators from Rust Belt and coal-producing states last year said they couldn’t support a climate proposal introduced onto the chamber floor, a bill less stringent than the president’s proposal. They warned such a bill needed “great care” in crafting due to potential impacts on the economy, energy prices and industry competition. Those same senators, including Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have again joined forces this year and are drafting a set of principles they say should guide climate bill legislation.
The Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said slipping the climate bill into the budget reconciliation process may be the easiest route. The procedure also could be used for other controversial energy provisions that could mandate renewable energy production and give greater federal authority to site electricity transmission.
Surveying the legislative landscape, the administration is using a multi-pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gases. The president has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to draft new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions through the existing Clean Air Act.
Forcibly creating new climate laws, either through the Clean Air Act or budget reconciliation, is highly controversial.
When Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush used the budget reconciliation process to push through his tax cuts in 2001, some Democrats were outraged, accusing the administration of by-passing the Democratic process.
Leaders in Obama’s own party are warning about the tactic.
Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat from coal-state Montana and the chairman of the Finance Committee, said “it’s not a good idea,” and the partisan nature of such a strategy would cause the administration trouble.
“It’s possible 51 votes could be found, but at what cost?” he said on the sidelines of party lunches. “There’s lots of ways to throw sand into the Senate’s gears ... even with reconciliation, there are ways to slow things down,” he cautioned.
Sen. Nelson said he was opposed to reconciliation, “because I don’t think it’s the appropriate way to deal with climate change. That needs to go through the regular order.”
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Congress needed more debate on climate change before passing legislation.
Bingaman, who has supported a less onerous climate bill, suggested using reconciliation for climate change or including energy provisions would hinder passage.
“It gets difficult to pass the bigger and more complex any legislation gets,” he told reporters.
Republicans are more blunt. “It’s a horrible idea, would be seen as a vast power grab and would be wildly unpopular,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate GOP’s leadership team.
One way the administration could build support would be to give emission credits to some sectors such as utilities most exposed to a cap-and-trade program.
“This is going to be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. D-N.D., at a panel hearing Tuesday. It is “unlikely the bill will pass if it doesn’t have money set aside for industries that will be especially hard hit.”
LOL. I had this conversation with a SF lib! I asked him about Greenland. He said it was mis-named due to the green reflection of the sun on the water!
God these people are insufferable.
This is way tooo Coooooool.
This is one of my favorite arguments when I get into it with the AGW nuts. I’d rather have a little warming than cooling, that would put all agriculture at risk.
Thanx for posting!
An oldy but goody...Wikipedia is lying up a storm - the freepers with the facts need to hit this page on Global Warming and start crossing swords with the kids from Pravda.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
Lawrence Solomon.
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.
As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.
In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.
Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.
I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.
Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.
Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.
I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.
Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.
I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.
Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.
Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.
“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.
Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.
Hvalsey Church, which is the best preserved Norse ruin in Greenland.
I kind of prefer the Terminator’s response to the nosy landlord, myself...