Monday, December 01, 2008


An email from Henry N. Geraedts, PhD []

Might we be witnessing the third morphing of "Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change" politics? I think so. The first iteration was the original "Man-made-CO2-driven Anthropogenic Global Warming" [AGW], aka Hansen and Gore, Opus 1, 1988. When however, it became evident to all but the most shuttered dogmatists that global temperatures peaked in 1998, levelled off and that since 2003 key temperature metrics show what appears to be an accelerating decline, AGW handlers deftly and conveniently morphed it into its second iteration, and it took on the more nebulous form of man-made "Climate Change".

So what if the data runs counter to your contention that [Man-made] CO2 is the causal agent in "Global Warming"? Just buttress CO2 with other previously insignificant "greenhouse gases" [at all cost avoiding mentioning water vapour, by far the dominant GHG but likely a negative forcing..] and voila, the man-made component of the "climate crisis" can now again be held up as the determining driver in what just happens to be the most complex, multi-variate, non-linear and poorly understood system known to mankind. The fact that all of this irrevocably relegated the AGW/ACC case to the realms of alchemy, astrology and other pseudo "sciences" didn't bother the dogmatists in the least.

Inconveniently however, "climate change" for the past 6 years or so has meant an increasingly well documented global cooling trend. To the point where this is becoming politically bothersome. Two governments with enough backbone to do so -in New Zealand and Canada respectively- have ever so cautiously indicated that there are sufficient question marks in the margin to slow down the pace of environmental policy commitments, focus firmly on economic matters and even [may the heavens forbid] undertake a critical review of the "science" said to prove "man-made climate change". In the recent election, Canadian voters singularly punished the Liberal Party which ran on a carbon tax based "Green Shift" platform.

My sense is that given that the enviro-political gearbox clearly is not meshing as smoothly as before, we are starting to witness AGW's third political morphing in which both the EU and the US serve up to their voters a reworked political message about the need for GHG reductions, gradually unwinding the purported "climate crisis" argument in favour of the a new and overarching need to secure "energy independence" [from Russia for Europe and OPEC for the US]? Current attempts to salvage the EU's 20/20/20 GHG mitigation program are increasingly being held up in that light, and Obama's read-between-the-lines messages about the environment and energy appear to fit the mould.


And the Greenies are squawking. They know it is much more comfortable sucking on the government teat

PLANS to privatise the Exeter-based Met Office will short-change the taxpayer by millions of pounds, the union representing more than 1,250 scientists and other staff at the UK forecaster said yesterday.

The union Prospect was responding to the announcement in yesterday's pre-budget report that the Met Office is to be examined with a view to privatisation. Negotiations Officer Philippa Childs said: "It is incredible that the government would even consider selling off its main centre of climate change expertise, not only after numerous previous investigations into the merits of privatisation have concluded it should be left as a public service, but at a time when the general economic climate will fail to provide an adequate return.

"As well as providing the National Meteorological Service for the UK, its combined weather and climate change research and expertise is relied on by MOD, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Defra. "Privatisation would denude the government of this intelligence. How can an agency that is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be privatised and still be expected to provide objective information?"

More here

Oceans acidifying much faster than was thought

Another "model" failure -- showing how little we understand about climate phenomena

The oceans are becoming more acidic, and much faster than previously thought, scientists say. The process, a possible threat to some ocean life, seems to be linked with rising levels of atmospheric gases that are blamed for global warming, according to the researchers.

University of Chicago scientists detailed the new findings in a paper published online by the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov. 24. The study is based on 24,519 measurements of ocean acidity spanning eight years. During that time, "the acidity increased more than 10 times faster" than climate change models and other studies had predicted, said the university's J. Timothy Wootton, lead author of the study.

"This increase will have a severe impact on marine food webs." Wootton and colleagues said the process seems to be occuring in step with increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a key "greenhouse gas," a compound that researchers say acts as a largescale blanket in the atmosphere, trapping heat on Earth and thus driving global warming. When the carbon dioxide dissolves in water it forms carbonic acid.

Abnormally acidic water harms certain sea animals, the authors said. "Many sea creatures have shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate, which the acid can dissolve," said the university's Catherine Pfister, a coauthor of the study. They added that the acidity could reduce the ocean's ability to soak up more carbon dioxide, a process which some have hoped would mitigate climate change.


OIL AND GAS: Interior Dept. alters land-use plans to allow shale development

The Interior Department is amending land-use plans in Western states to pave the way for commercial oil-shale and tar-sands leasing, but environmentalists and some lawmakers are mulling ways to restrict or prevent the development. Stephen Allred, Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, signed a formal "record of decision" on amending 10 land-use plans in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to make about 2 million acres available for oil shale leasing and 430,000 acres available for tar sands leasing.

The decision follows final commercial leasing rules announced last week, although Allred said potential large-scale development is not expected for at least five to 10 years (Greenwire, Nov. 17). The land-use plan changes are needed to allow future lease sales. A major 2005 energy law called on Interior to craft plans for developing the unconventional resources.

The record of decision to change the land-use plans will "serve as the first step in the process to establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program that meets the intent of Congress while taking advantage of the best available information and practices to minimize impacts and ensure that states, local communities, and the public have the opportunity to be involved," states the document. The decision is slated to be announced in Friday's Federal Register.

Oil shale is found in abundance in the Green River formation, which spans sections of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. It may hold as much as 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to Interior's Bureau of Land Management.

Interior says that future development will be subject to site-specific environmental analysis that could prompt required mitigation measures, moving proposed leases or not issuing them. In addition, the record of decision lists a slate of proposed conservation measures to accompany development that are aimed at protecting endangered species, such as the Colorado River cutthroat trout and other endangered fish, bald eagles and other creatures.

But environmentalists oppose development of the fuels due to greenhouse gas emissions and potential harms to wildlife and surrounding water. A lengthy set of proposals that environmental groups gave President-elect Barack Obama's transition team this week includes the repeal of recently enacted tax incentives for refinery projects to process oil shale and tar sands. The groups also say the commercial leasing rules lack adequate environmental safeguards. They want the new administration to review the rule's "defects" and take steps to correct them.

In addition, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) said this month that he may introduce legislation that would impose new restrictions on development. He alleges that the Bush administration is moving ahead with the development program despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects (E&ENews PM, Nov. 18).


The Global Warming Goons Want Your Little Ones

I bet Jim Jones is tooling around hell right now green with envy over the mind manipulation the global warming greenies are wielding upon our culture. We've got green jobs, green cars, green dogs, green houses, green toilet paper and environmentally friendly green condoms. Everything now must become green or it is gone, mama. I'm sure Kermit the frog, iguanas, the Grinch, the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Gumby are seriously ticked off regarding the liberal alarmists' hysterical hijacking of the color they have previously owned, loved and profited from for so many years.

I'm an oil painter, and as an artist I, naturally, love colors-all kinds of colors-but not anymore. Because of the global warming alarmists, as of right now, I officially hate the color green (nothing personal, green). I'm just sick of hearing about you. You are everywhere. It's that whole overexposure thing . . . that Kathie Lee Gifford, incessant yacking about Cody and Cassidy mind numbing malaise that just the mention of your name now spawns.

Because of the sick amount of cash involved, both sides of the political aisle have drunk so much of the Global Warming Kool-Aid that they are peeing green, and if we the sheeple don't lock step to these unhinged fascist demands then we're the devil, Bobby Boucher. There are several things that get me heated up over the global warmers' hyperventilated horse smack. It's stuff like:

- The specious science the global warblers put forth which establishes truth not by facts but through non-stop repetition.

- How the taxpayer dollar is floating this flotsam to the tune of $6 billion a year. That's more than we send to the National Cancer Institute and to AIDS research.

- The Gestapoesque censorship of "dissenters" and "deniers" of the global warming "facts" by the greenies. God help you if you don't parrot their apocalyptic projections. If you don't believe me, just ask the "climate criminals" NASA chief Michael Griffin and NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner. Yep, if science is your field and you don't inhale what the alarmists are trying to sell then you are SOL regarding a J-O-B.

- Actors in Hollywood who won't hump a tree and trade in their H2 for a Huffy might as well slap a Bush/Cheney sticker on their truck and drive back to wherever the heck they hail from.

- College students who dare to question their panic-stricken prof's apocalyptic predictions will endure more scorn than a nice old Christian lady holding a Styrofoam cross at a gay activist rally.

- Everything is now being blamed on global warming from summer frost in Africa, freezing penguin chicks, poorly rising bread dough, impoverished fashion houses and the recent economic downturn suffered by Bulgarian whorehouses.

- The MSM's obvious omission of the fact that birds, fleas, and trees crank out more CO2 than humans. Hey, MSM greenie weenie, a cow's tailpipe puts out more pollutants than a BMW's. How are you going to guilt trip the flora and fauna into following you? They don't watch your morning "news" or Hollywood's stupid Leo DeCaprio and Al Gore end of the world fear flicks. How are you going to get them to step and fetch?

- Congress is currently deliberating whether or not they should make "environment literacy training" a required course for your kids before they get to graduate.

Which brings me to the main point of this column and that which really ticks me off about the green freaks: namely, how they're after our kids with their gospel of green. Here's the rationale behind their brainwashing our young `uns: A lot of thinking adults (as in the multiple millions) think that the greenies are pretty much off their rocker. Since the greenies can't have us arrested (yet), they have decided to get their agenda going via our children, primarily through the agency of the public school system. Yep, if they can get little kids who still eat their boogers to believe in their boogie man then they will morph into half-pint climate nags who will be an emotional guilt tripping Disney-fueled pain in the butt to the parents who are destroying the earth by not using low flow toilets.

Our kids are being hammered with green hysteria from K through 12. Yep, on a regular basis they are spoon fed apocalyptic children's books meant to scare the crap out of them and paint the F-150 father as a bad, bad man. In addition, many schools force the kids to view chunky butt, hypocrite extraordinaire Al Gore's daft film and do chants and life pledges to save the earth. The global warmers are serious as a heart attack about making our children "Inconvenient Youths, veritable eco-warriors who will go after their parents for environmental offenses."

To help you help yourself and yours steer clear from these terra firma fascists, NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner has penned a new book that is must for those who do not wish to be gang tackled by the green gang. In Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how the greenies are about to go into overdrive, forcing new legislation, killing our weak economy, squelching our freedoms, and quashing all dissenting opinion about the causes and effects of climate change.

He has a particularly freaky chapter on how the greenies are gunning for our children, indoctrinating them to the extent that they blame their own parents for the "warming globe." This heavily footnoted book body slams the global warming alarmists and their junk science. Get one for yourself and your kids and become a "climate criminal" with me!

Since gas prices are now plummeting, I'm off to the Ford dealership. I'm thinking about ordering their spankin' new pickup truck, the 2009 Ford F-666 Global Warmer, with the El Diablo package. Varooom!


Australia squibs on climate promise

Reality is slowly encroaching

The Rudd Government has reneged on a commitment to present its 2020 target to cut greenhouse gases to UN climate talks that start today. The back-pedalling comes amid wrangling in cabinet over how far to go with curbing emissions. The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, yesterday defended the decision not to announce the target before she left for the talks in the Polish city of Poznan. She refused to comment on whether cabinet was divided over the target, which is expected to fall significantly below the level called for by European ministers, climate scientists and environmentalists who will attend the talks. "It is the case that we said we would release the targets in December and we had indicated before Poznan," she said. But she said it was important to postpone the announcement until she released the final version of the Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme on December 15 - after she returned from Poland.

Until late last week Senator Wong repeatedly said the range of emissions cuts for the 2020 target would be set before she went to Poznan. "The intention is to announce, as I have said, our midterm target range prior to the Poznan negotiations. And that's the terms, the timetable, the Government's working on," she said on October 2.

Under intense lobbying from business and on the advice of senior officials, the Government is discussing setting a range of targets to cut greenhouse emissions by 2020. The target is now expected to be cuts between 5 per cent and 15 per cent of emissions, based on 2000 levels. This is significantly below the cuts of 25 to 40 per cent being called for by the European Union and climate scientists. The European environment ministers argue that developed countries such as Australia must agree to the higher cuts if they want to secure a new global agreement that will avoid dangerous climate change.

At last year's UN climate talks in Bali, all developed countries that had signed the Kyoto Protocol, including Australia, agreed to cuts between 25 and 40 per cent. China, India and Brazil, the fastest growing greenhouse gas polluters, argue that they will not make commitments to slow their emissions if developed countries fail to agree to this level of cuts. By delaying the announcement of Australia's 2020 target, Senator Wong will avoid intense international criticism of Australia from European negotiators and environment groups if cabinet sets a weaker 2020 target range.

"It's a disappointment," said John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, who has been lobbying the Government for the more ambitious 2020 target. But he said he believed the Government was still discussing higher emissions cuts of 25 per cent. "It's still alive. We're working as hard as we can to keep it alive", he told the Herald, but he described business's lobbying against a 25 per cent target as "nothing short of brutal".

The chief executive of the environment group WWF, Greg Bourne, said Senator Wong would "be laughed out of Poznan" if she announced at the UN talks that Australia's 2020 target was between 5 and 15 per cent. Asked if she was avoiding making the announcement in Poland because of the international criticism, Senator Wong said: "I am not going to comment on a hypothetical." The head of the Australian Conservation Council, Don Henry, said Australia needed to cut its emissions by at least a third by 2020 if it wanted to be a credible player at the UN talks.

While Europe has already promised cuts of 20 per cent, Senator Wong said few countries had yet announced firm targets for their cuts and many would not be completed until the final round of talks next year in Copenhagen. The scale of the energy revolution being proposed by Europe has some business leaders in Australia deeply concerned.



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


No comments: