PROOF! Global warming caused by argon!

A weak long-term correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and terrestrial warming is one of the basic "proofs" that Warmists offer for their claims. On that reasoning the fact that the concentration of argon in ice core bubbles goes up and down alongside CO2 over the long term should "prove" that argon (another atmospheric gas) causes warming too. Or maybe CO2 causes argon to emerge from somewhere! See the graph below:



"BP" stands for "Before the Present". Argon in the period above is quite a close correlate with CO2. That both argon and CO2 levels might be an EFFECT of warming rather than vice versa must not be mentioned, of course. Everyone knows how the fizz fizzles away as a Pepsi gets warm. Likewise, since the ocean contains vast reserves of CO2, anyone can easily grasp what happens when the ocean gets warm. The scales should fall off of people's eyes when that simple fact is explained.





Global warming a big hoax

In the spirit of being a good neighbor, I've decided to offer a needed service for all of the believers in human-caused global warming. That's right, step right up, folks, I'm going to be selling carbon credits to those who want to assuage their guilt about heating up the planet with their SUVs.

For those of you not familiar with carbon credits, people who don't want to cut back on their use of fossil fuels just pay someone else to cut back, much the same way you might pay someone to eat healthy foods for you so you can eat anything you want.

My gimmick is that I'm offering $100 carbon credits for only $89 each. If you buy carbon credits from Al Gore, you'll have to pay the full retail price. But if you send your money directly to me, you'll receive an official certificate for $100 in carbon credits for every $89 you send. But wait, there's more. If you are among the first 500 purchasers, we'll include a fantastic vegetable chopper, a $19.99 value, absolutely free.

And you will be helping to save the planet. I've had my eye on a 12-foot jon boat with a used 10-horse Evinrude, which will no doubt pump out oodles of carbon dioxide. But instead, I'm going to use the proceeds of carbon credit sales to purchase a sailboat -- in other words, an environmentally friendly boat that uses wind power. The latest issue of Yachts International includes an ad for a 66-foot Van De Stadt for a mere $2,295,000. That's a lot of carbon credits, but I'm sure if all of you dig deep enough, we can pull this off.

When you display your certificates on the wall, not only can you be smug about protecting our planet, you can also proudly tell your friends and neighbors that you got them wholesale.

Expanding the same general principle, I'm also pleased to offer healthy food credits to folks who need to improve their diet. Just send me $5, and I'll eat a stalk of celery for you. Of course, that's with a big blob of Cheese Whiz spread all over it. Sorry, if you want me to eat the thing with no topping; it'll cost you 10 bucks.

(Note to the humor-challenged: the above is satire. Do not send money to me or to any carnie out there, whether they are selling carbon credits or tickets to see a two-headed calf.)

I believe it was P.T. Barnum who said that there is a carbon credit purchaser born every minute. Or, did he say that a carbon credit purchaser and his money are soon parted? Well, it was something like that.

It would be easy to write off the global warming alarmists as a bunch of harmless boobs who will soon be refuted, but we should learn from history. DDT alarmism was also based on politics instead of science and has been thoroughly refuted, but at last count, there are still a million people perishing from malaria each year due to the DDT ban.

While everyone agrees that the earth has warmed between a half degree and one degree centigrade over the last century, and that humans may have a small part in it, there is absolutely no "consensus" that humans are the major cause. Since the planet Mars is also warming, it is likely that we are experiencing a normal variation in the sun's output. Furthermore, if the earth continues to warm, there is no universal agreement that humans can actually do anything about it.

Yes, of course we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But, we know that global warming alarmism is simply a political ploy when alarmists refuse to acknowledge the real solution -- nuclear power -- which puts nothing other than water vapor into the atmosphere.

A report released by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) on Dec. 20 included this opening statement: "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore." That sums it up nicely, but you can read the entire report at epw.senate.gov.

Source






Greenies don't let the facts disturb them

They just KNOW what is best. Who needs research?

Sourcing local products is often less environmentally friendly than buying the same products from abroad, an academic has warned. While buying food produced locally can cut down on carbon emissions used to transport the goods from their country of origin, the benefits may be counteracted by the "food print" of plants grown in greenhouse conditions. The term is the latest buzzword used to describe the environmental impact of certain types of food production.

But while a carbon footprint refers to the emissions used to transport food across the world, a "food print" describes the amount of land needed to supply a person's nutritional needs for a year. Using locally produced, but out-of-season, food grown in artificial environments like greenhouses can actually use more emissions than shipping the same goods from areas where they grow naturally, according to Gareth Edward-Jones, professor of agricultural and land-use studies at Bangor University.

He said, "People talk about the ecological and carbon footprints of what we eat but we have been studying the whole environmental impact of food. "Everybody seems to want to blame farmers or air travel in the food miles debate but a large amount of the responsibility for it lies within our own kitchens. "However consumers might be surprised to find out that in certain instances, you cannot always say that sourcing local is best. "Although it is important for farmers and growers to try and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from their activities, it is also important that these reflect energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from other activities in both households and the wider economy.

"For example, food grown in Kenya using geo-thermal energy can use less energy even when it is flown over here than some UK-produced food. "And if you buy a lettuce in winter from the UK where it is grown in a greenhouse, it can be more energy intensive than one trucked into the UK from fields in Spain. "Consumers are likely to start trading off their concerns about carbon pollution for other issues. "Carbon is not the only pollutant, we also need to consider land use and water pollution into rivers caused by run off in Spain."

Professor Edwards-Jones added that wine and coffee are two products that consumers should cut down on if climate change is their main concern because of the amount of CO2 emissions involved in their energy-intensive production. "The trouble is that middle-class consumers get excited about the sorts of food and drink that suits them, rather than what they feel might hurt them," he said. "I cannot see them giving up wine or coffee. "Although consumers want to buy local, with the coming year likely to see food shortages, debt and a higher cost of living, those who are hard up are likely to put the emphasis on buying cheaper food."

He said estimates suggested that 25% of the total supply of fruit and vegetables goes to waste. "While 170,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables per year may be wasted in the retail sector, the greatest volume of waste occurs in consumers' homes, with 31% of consumers admitting to throwing away food because it has gone off `always, very often or quite often'.

Gordon James, of Friends of the Earth Cymru, added, "Food waste is increasing all the time and take-away food is especially bad for this. "And we are told by health experts that drinking too much alcohol is a bad thing so maybe we should be drinking more water with meals instead of wine and less coffee too. But people can end up feeling confused by all the information. "So it makes sense to stick to some basic and clear principles, such as buying food with a good nutritional value with less climate change damage. "Or even better, produce the food yourself in your back garden."

A spokesman for Oxfam added, "Food prints are a follow on from carbon footprints and anything that can help consumers to consider where their food comes from, and its impact, is a good thing."

Source





Newt Gingrich Out-Greens Al Gore?

Newt Gingrich has guzzled Al Gore's Kool-Aid. Now he wants us and the Republican 2008 presidential candidates to drink it, too. The former House Speaker's latest book, "A Contract with the Earth" co-authored with Palm Beach Zoo CEO Terry Maple, is an appalling paean to environmental na‹vet‚ and taxpayer-subsidized profiteering.

While the book's theme - i.e., let's all just happily pitch in and do what it takes to save the environment - may sound reasonable, at least on a superficial basis, Mr. Gingrich's notions are often wrong or simply bizarre, and his prescriptions amount to little more than a full embrace of rent-seeking "green" business and left-leaning eco-activist groups, both of which often masquerade as "protectors" of the environment.

The book opens with the melodramatic line, "We are personally diminished by the loss of each and every species or habitat that cannot resist extinction." But nowhere does Mr. Gingrich indicate that we've been diminished by the ongoing malarial genocide in Africa caused by the senseless 1972 ban on the pesticide DDT - which was promoted by the Environmental Defense, a command-and-control activist group laughably lauded by Mr. Gingrich as an "advocate of market-based solutions to environmental problems."

Another over-the-top sentiment is Mr. Gingrich's endorsement of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's doomsday observance, "The living world is dying." But if Mr. Gingrich wants to be taken seriously on the environment - he claims to have been an environmental studies professor - such meaningless drivel is best avoided.

Mr. Gingrich asks, "Who among us lacks a fundamental respect for the earth?" But he simultaneously slams so-called "anti-environmental politicians" as "out of step with the American people" and the "patriotic worldview" - whatever that is. I don't know of any politician who is "anti-environment," though there are a great many who demand that environmental policy be based on sound science and cost-benefit analysis, and who distrust politicized eco-activists.

Mr. Gingrich wants us to work for a common cause but he has little use for the opinions of others, regardless of their expertise and his lack thereof. In response to the view of Shell Oil's CEO that America will always need foreign oil even as it develops alternative energy sources, Gingrich dismissively writes, "It is difficult, if not impossible, to have an intelligent conversation about energy if we cannot agree that independence from foreign oil, ... [and] from fossil fuel, is achievable." The book is better titled, "My Way or the Highway."

"The distribution of carcinogens in the environment is a serious problem. a healthier environment is needed to defeat many forms of cancer," writes Mr. Gingrich. Without any citations, however, it's difficult to imagine what he's talking about. Substances in the environment as detectable, let alone, significant causes of cancer is a Jimmy Carter-era notion that decades of scientific investigation has yet to validate.

Mr. Gingrich discusses something called "nature deficit disorder" (NDO), which self-described "futurist" Richard Louv has hypothesized as children's underexposure to nature and a contributing factor to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although not "yet" recognized by scientists, Mr. Gingrich calls NDO a "compelling" idea.

The ethanol industry is praised as are many other subsidy-hungry industries aiming to profit from real and imagined environmental and energy concerns. Mr. Gingrich doesn't mention, however, that ever-increasing government subsidies to the ethanol industry are distorting agricultural markets, increasing consumer prices and putting more stress on the environment, all while failing to produce discernible environmental benefits or energy independence. While Mr. Gingrich praises the use of tax credits and subsidies to convert landfill gases, manure and wind power into energy, there's nary a word about the only practical and truly green power source available - nuclear energy.

The book's examples of entrepreneurship as a means to advancing environmental goals fall apart upon closer consideration. Shell Oil, for example, is praised for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by pumping the gas into greenhouses in Rotterdam rather than into the atmosphere. But this amounts to only a slight delay in the atmospheric release of a miniscule amount of CO2. Where does Mr. Gingrich think the CO2 goes after the short-lived plants are consumed or decompose?

The 2004 hijacking of 680,000 acres of Chilean forest from a U.S. timber company and scuttling of the largest-ever sustainable forestry project through the combined efforts of The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society and investment bank Goldman Sachs is offered as an example of "protecting hallowed sites." As readers of this column know, however, the "Great Chilean Land Steal" is actually an example of how the poor people of Chile, the environment, and a U.S. business all received the short-end of the stick while the environmentalists made off with a multi-billion dollar asset.

That is not the only example of where Mr. Gingrich's apparently beloved Nature Conservancy has operated more in its own narrow interests than on behalf the of public on whose behalf it has been bestowed tax-exempt status.

Not surprisingly, the book exalts Sierra Club founder John Muir. Interestingly, Mr. Gingrich blithely mentions Muir's martial law-like view favoring use of the military to enforce environmental law. Disturbingly, he moves on without ever disapproving the policy.

Without explanation, Mr. Gingrich slams the Congress and President Bush for "having failed to exert sufficient and effective leadership on the environment." Not only does Mr. Gingrich "anticipate a return to assertive American leadership," presumably after the 2008 elections, but he calls for an end to adversarial politics. But from checks-and-balances to the two-party system, our form of government is built on adversarial processes. Only in totalitarian systems - much to the disadvantage of their populations and environments - are adversarial politics absent.

Mr. Gingrich says you can tell which presidential candidate to support by evaluating his advisors' positions on the environment. Terrific. So if you see Mr. Gingrich advising a candidate, consider yourself forewarned

Source





Natural warming no cause for worry

By Thomas Ring, a chemical engineer with a degree from Case Western Reserve University

SUPERVISOR Charles McGlashan, in the Sept. 26 IJ, said "the county's growth policies have to take global warming seriously. We are fighting a race against potential extinction." His reference was to the nonscientific consensus that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.

Over many millennia, the Earth's average temperature has cycled between about 54 Fahrenheit and 72 Fahrenheit. It now is about 60 degrees. Prior to about 1850, we have only proxy information about the Earth's temperature, but we know it was warm in Roman times (about 600 BC) and around 1000 (when grapes grew in the United Kingdom and Greenland was rich in vegetation). These warmer periods occurred in the absence of man-made CO2. Since 1850, it has been possible to measure the Earth's average temperature and atmospheric CO2 more precisely.

From 1850 to 1912, there was a rather stable "cool" period.

From 1912 to 1943, when there was little man-made CO2 emission, it warmed about 1.1 degrees (remember the heat and drought in the Southwest United States in the 1930s?), and atmospheric CO2 increased from 0.029 percent to 0.031 percent.

From 1943 to 1974, it cooled about 0.6 degrees (while CO2 increased from 0.031 percent to 0.033 percent), giving rise to a "new ice age" scare.

Since 1974, it has warmed about 1.3 degrees, and atmospheric CO2 increased from 0.033 percent to 0.037 percent, giving rise to the current scare of "global warming caused by man-made CO2."

Curiously, Mars, our closest planet whose surface temperature we've measured since 1975, has warmed about the same as Earth.

What's responsible for prior periods of warmth in 600 BC, 1000 and 1912 to 1943, all when there was no or little man-made CO2? It's most likely the sun, whose radiation varies to the fourth power of its temperature. A mere 0.25 percent rise in the sun's temperature can cause a significant 5 degree rise in the Earth's temperature. And it's most likely why Mars, along with the Earth, is warming.

The major greenhouse gases are CO2 and water vapor. Current atmospheric CO2 is a teeny 0.037 percent, and its impact is far less than proportional as its concentration increases. Atmospheric water vapor is, however, 0.9 percent, 25 times as much as CO2. Water vapor is a "radiator" that is three times more powerful than CO2, but its larger effect has been ignored in the global warming debate.

"An Inconvenient Truth," which starred Al Gore, makes the case that today's global warming is caused by man-made CO2. A British court has ruled that the film has nine major errors that must be disclosed to UK audiences before and after showing the film.

To understand the global warming hoax, just "follow the money."

- First, $20 billion in taxpayer money thrown only to institutions that embrace man-made CO2 as the cause of global warming.

- Second, the rise of commission-based businesses that buy and sell "CO2 credits," among which is Generation Investment Management LLC, whose chief executive is Gore.

- And third, greedy politicians and bureaucrats (exemplified by Assembly Bill 32 and the California Air Resources Board), who see man-made CO2 emissions as tax generators.

Warming of the Earth has never been catastrophic; in fact, humankind has always fared better in warmer than cooler periods, with less hardship and illness and improved agriculture. We should not fear global warming. We do, however, need solid, objective and unbiased research, rather than fear-mongering based on a nonscientific "consensus."

Source

***************************************

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************