The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Still Think It’s All About “Pollution”?

By

Joanne Nova does the math and provides its empirical evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for some time now.  The science of gobal warming is a myth designed solely as a means for a few to gain power and control through the creation of a new kind of commodity, sold to the dim-witted using the psychology of fear.

She sums it up like this:

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions:  “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

She then poses the question:

  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

We’ve pointed out here that “researchers” at the IPCC are contracted to and paid for by governments with vested interests in dreams of wealth and political power from cap & trade.  Governments who are egged on, and the politicians within them financially supported, by people like Al Gore and by companies like General Electric, who’ve already invested heavily in and positioned themselves with, in particular, the United States government in order to monopolize what they see as potential of a new world market.

If this were simply capitalism, I’d be all for it.  But like the empirical science that says global warming is an inconvenient myth, the empirical math once again proves the insanity of trying to fix what was never broken in the first place.

 

Quote Of The Day

By

“I’ve had mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying:  ‘Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.'”

Plimer’s response … is typically robust. 

“If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?”

 

(From James Delingpole’s interview with Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist whose new book shows that “anthropogenic global warming” is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a “first-world luxury” with no basis in scientific fact.)

Shearing The Shrinking Sheep Myth

By

An article from the French press recently made headlines by outlining the “case of the shrinking sheep“.  It seems that the wild Soay sheep in a little place called Hirta, in the St. Kilda archipelago in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, are defying Darwin and the evolutionists by becoming smaller in size as their population ages.

Hirta is a little storm-battered island only just over 2 miles square and when its last small settlement of human inhabitants finally left in 1930, taking their sheep with them, the only fauna remaining behind were the seabirds, seals, and the St. Kilda wood mouse.   The Soay sheep were introduced in 1932 to roam freely and the area eventually became a wildlife refuge.

The average person just doesn’t spend much time thinking about biological diversity and the reasons for it, and brave little sheep on a wind-swept isle in romantic Scotland make for wonderfully guilt-inducing photo ops.   But there is something wrong with this picture.

Every ecosystem has an inherent set of checks and balances and in the case of Hirta, what is missing from the traditional and expected picture is a natural predator of the sheep.  The wild Soay sheep on Hirta have lived with no pressure from anything except their physical surroundings and, naturally, this increases the chances of survival for the small and the weak.  But despite their unpressured existence, studies have shown the population fluctuates with “periodic population crashes, during which up to 60% of the population may die. The adult sex ratio is strongly female biased due to heavily male biased mortality during population crashes.” 

There is also the matter of inbreeding, and although one study shows Soay sheep to be less likely than other species to mate with close relatives, the inherent small numbers of the population and limited habitat naturally depresses the availability of genetic diversity over time.

The fear-mongers who beat the voodoo drums of global warming to conjure up their own future financial windfalls want you to believe that the wild Soay sheep are shrinking like a wool sweater because of being tumbled in a hot man-made dryer, but don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes.  Common sense looks for an explanation that actually meets the criteria of reality; because of my own work I know that there are numerous exceptions in this wonderful world to what is called “Bergman’s Rule”, a biological observation that says members of a species tend to be larger in the cooler part of their range.  When you look at the circumstances in which the wild Soay sheep live on Hirta their slightly smaller size today – a phenomena still unfolding – is far more likely due to a naturally-belated exception-to-Bergman’s-Rule response to the previous, slight warming trend the Earth has recently experienced, then combined with a previously-unneeded but hearty “small size” gene becoming dominent due to the naturally slow rate of inbreeding combined with the lack of natural predation.

And such exceptions do not conclusions make.  Unless, of course, you’re out to fleece someone.

The Great & Powerful O…bama?

By

Logic.  It’s a beautiful thing.  It’s also the stuff of which common sense is made.  Life is made up of continually connecting the dots and coming to a conclusion.  It’s not rocket science, though rocket science and, indeed, all science does basically this very same thing.

If….

Then….

Else….

When you fall off a horse and find yourself unable to move one of your arms without severe pain, you go see a doctor who will x-ray your hurting arm.  If it’s broken, then the doctor will set it so it will heal properly, else they will send you home with instructions to take pain medication and take it easy for a while.

When you’re driving down the highway at night and your car stalls, you pull over to the side of the road and look at the gas gauge.  If it’s on empty then you will call for help, else you’ll walk down the highway to the nearest exit (or sit there unhappily, hoping someone will notice your plight and stop).

There is a difference between “hard science” and what is often called “soft science”.  Hard science is the realm of mathmeticians, biologists, engineers, etc.  They work with hard facts (1 + 1 = 2) and conclusions are based on the ability to consistently repeat a scenario.  This is why your lights turn on when you flip a switch, how your doctor knows when to prescribe an antiobiotic and which one will work, and how man got to the Moon and back.  It is the source of your reading this font on your monitor screen.

Soft science, on the other hand, mimics hard science in its attempts to validate a conclusion but, very simply speaking, its conclusions are far more likely to be mere possibility than real probability because the number of variables is simply far too large to get easily from point A to point B.  Soft science is the realm of psychologists, sociologists, even astrologers.  For example, psychologists study human behavior and tell us things like people who torture animals as children are more likely to grow up to be something really bad, like serial killers.  Astrologers look at a “map” of the time of a person’s birth and tell us of things for which a person has the most affinity.  Because of its inherent element of chance (i.e. too many variables to calculate, often called “choice”), soft science has always been far more fascinating to a majority of people, as evidenced by the never-ending speculation on the predictions of Nostradamus, the Mayans (2012, anyone?), the Bible, etc., as well as documentaries about everyone who doesn’t live a “normal life”, from Jesus to Charles Manson to Michael Jackson. 

People often confuse the two, however, and this is when you find “hard” scientists mocking their “soft”-studying counterparts.  Personally, I believe both sides have a place at the table but it is important to understand what that place is, what it really means for each to be in their proper place, and only then place your bets accordingly.  Think of hard science like putting your money in a savings account.  You’re guaranteed to draw interest on it and come out ahead.  Soft science is like buying a lottery ticket or investing in the stock market.  You may – or you may not – come out a winner.

Confusing the two can also have deadly consequences.  One example is the Holocaust.  Scientists of the “soft” kind determined there was something wrong with Jews, insisted their “hard” counterparts prove their conclusions, and we all know how that worked for everyone involved.  (Well, everyone knows it except a handful of pinheads like Iranian President Ahmadinejad.) 

On the subject of global warming we find a mix of hard and soft science coming together in a way almost as terrifying as the Holocaust.  Hard science is telling us one thing (humans are having little to no effect on the cyclical climate of the Earth) but soft science is telling us something else.  Did I mention that soft science is more often than not influenced by the personal psychology of the scientist?  You can pick up a stone and put it in a bucket, then pick up another stone and put into the bucket, too, then look in the bucket and see two stones.  A hard scientist who calculated there would be three stones in the bucket sees the two stones as tangible proof their calculations were wrong and instead of denying what they see, go back to examine where they messed up (original premise? method? mathmatical equation?).  Then they repeat their experiment and eventually end up with a final, documented conclusion that putting one stone in a bucket, then another stone in the bucket will always give you two stones in the bucket.  In the case of global warming, though the calculations of (government-supported, meaning vested interest-personal agenda) scientists have found to be wrong, instead of going back to find the flaws in their premise, methods, or calculations, the sponsors of the hard scientists (driven by soft scientists) are insisting that they simply throw away any data that doesn’t support their mistakes.   The scientists are, in effect, being told that the speck of dirt left in the bucket because someone didn’t clean it out before they used it to hold the stones must count as their third stone. 

This is a case of hard science shifting away from its original purpose and thereby jumping with both feet into the murky pond of prognostication.  All for the personal gain of a select few.  Of particular amusement is the involvment of President Obama.  Apparently, attempting to usurp the second coming wasn’t enough, it sounds as if he also wants to usurp Nostradamus’ place in our National Enquirer-minded history.  Witness his fortunetelling:

“A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter.”  (June 25, 2009)

His presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  (2008 campaign)

President Obama has also claimed he can snap his fingers and we’ll “block the Sun’s rays to end global warming.”

Simply because his one voice carries to the ears of the most Americans doesn’t change the truth.  The truth that what he says is wrong.  Wrong based on the hard facts of hard science.  So don’t confuse facts with “hopes”.  In the same way the Great & Powerful Oz was eventually revealed to be just a man, the stars might lie, but the numbers never do.

 

(Thanks to our friends at Climate Depot for this morning’s inspiration.)

The Stars Might Lie, But The Numbers Never Do (A Global Warming Review)

By

As the House begins its final sprint to rush some sort of cap & trade (tax) legislation to a floor vote this coming week (HR 2454, the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill), it is worth taking stock of where things stand.  I received an email from an Obama supporter (who once confessed, in secret, that soon after his election they had the beginnings of “serious doubts” about his ability to do his job) that contained what I can only call a progressive’s campaign article from The Nation.  One statement summed up its whole, wordy call to arms to push forward with Obama’s fascist plans:

We also need to expand the agenda for reform. For example, if we are to make the investments vital to our future, as the president has called for, a sustained expansion of public investment is essential–and that will require a far bolder tax policy.

It goes on to blather with reassuring hubris about taxes on the “wealthy” and those evil businesses who dare provide people with private sector jobs, but because of its immediacy, this piece is going to focus on the problems with cap & trade.  And the root cause of cap & trade is the New Religion of global warming.  Now, as we’ve noted here before, the gist of implementing cap & trade as mitigation to global warming is intended to gain government and special interest control of natural resources and thereby gain power and control over American citizens once it is realized that the Earth may more likely be entering a serious cooling period.  Plainly put, it’s all about money, not science.  Science hasn’t been in this picture for decades. 

In response to my friend’s email, I sent back a link to an article that presents an overview of some initial reactions to Obama’s latest “climate report”.  A report that, it should be known, was produced by more than 30 scientists working across 13 government agencies.  A report that, according to a UK Guardian article, was:

 “finalized in late April, but Obama administration officials spent several weeks planning (its)  release, honing the language and graphics to make it accessible to non-scientists and to sharpen its core message:  America must take action on climate change.

As part of the PR surrounding the release of the report, the administration approached the San Francisco consulting firm, Resource Media, which specialises in environmental campaigning, to produce a shorter and more digestible brochure of today’s report for wider public distribution.”

Let’s pretend we have some common sense for a moment and consider this carefully.  If the report was so solid in its facts, why was there a need for the administration to spend “weeks” tweaking its message?  Why did the administration need to hire a PR firm whose sole reason d’etre is putting warm, fuzzy spins on the myth of global warming?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and comes out of Chicago (or San Francisco), it ain’t worth the pot used to hold the water to cook it in, my friends.

The truth is that the “science” upon which the administration’s “report” is based is flawed.  As in skewed.  As in downright wacked.   And with its purpose being politically-motivated and, based on previous experience, very likely deliberately missing and/or excluding key points.  Another in a series of non-partisan scientific reports was released this month by the Nongovermental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).  Here are a few pertinent excerpts.  It is important to note these scientists didn’t need to use a PR firm to translate (spin) it for you so you can understand what they are saying (emphases mine).:

“The IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors were appointed by governments, and its Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) have been subject to approval by member governments of the UN. The scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all supported by government contracts, which pay not only for their research but for their IPCC activities. Most travel to and hotel accommodations at exotic locations for the drafting authors is paid with government funds.”

“The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (IPCCSAR, 1995) was completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” The SAR was again heavily criticized, this time for having undergone significant changes in the body of the report to make it ‘conform’ to the SPM—after it was finally approved by the scientists involved in writing the report. Not only was the report altered, but a key graph was also doctored to suggest a human influence. The evidence presented to support the SPM conclusion turned out to be completely spurious.

 There is voluminous materialavailable about these text changes, including a Wall StreetJournaleditorial article by Dr. Frederick Seitz (Seitz, 1996). This led to heated discussions between supporters of the IPCC and those who were aware of the altered text and graph, including an exchange of letters in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Singer et al., 1997).”

“The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC-TAR 2001) was noteworthy for its use of spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim of “new and stronger evidence” of anthropogenic global warming. One of these was the so-called “hockeystick” paper, an analysis of proxy data, which claimed the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1,000 years. The paper was later found to contain basic errors in its statistical analysis(McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006). The IPCC also supported a paper that claimed pre-1940 warming was of human origin and caused by greenhouse gases. This work, too, contained fundamental errors in its statistical analysis. The SEPP response to TAR was a 2002 booklet, The Kyoto Protocol is Not Backed by Science (SEPP, 2002).”

“The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC-AR4 2007) was published in 2007; the SPM of Working Group I was released in February; and the full report from this Working Group was released in May—after it had been changed, once again, to “conform” to the Summary. It is  significant that AR4 no longer makes use of the hockey-stick paper or the paper claiming pre-1940 human-caused warming.  Once again  controversy ensued, however, this time when the IPCC refused to publicly share comments submitted by peer-reviewers, then sent all the reviewers’ comments in hard copy to a library that was closed for renovation, and then finally, but only under pressure, posted them online. Inspection of those comments revealed that the authors had rejected more than half of all the reviewers’ comments in the crucial chapter attributing recent warming to human activities.

AR4 concluded that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original). However, as the present report will show, it ignored available evidence against a human contribution to current warming and the substantial research of the past few years on the effects of solar activity on climate change.

Why have IPCC reports been marred by controversy and so frequently contradicted by subsequent research? Certainly its agenda to find evidence of a human role in climate change is a major reason; its organization as a government entity beholden to political agendas is another major reason; and the large professional and financial rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who are willing to bend scientific facts to match those agendas is yet a third major reason.

Another reason for the IPCC’s unreliability is the naive acceptance by policymakers of “peer-reviewed” literature as necessarily authoritative.It has become the case that refereeing standards for many climate change papers are inadequate, often because of the use of an “invisible college” of reviewers of like inclination to a paper’s authors (Wegman et al., 2006). Policy should be set upon a background of demonstrable science, not upon simple (and often mistaken) assertions that, because a paper was refereed, its conclusions must be accepted.”

Translation:  The IPCC is under pressure to conform to economically-motivated political interests.  In my neck of the woods, the conditions under which IPCC scientists “work” is called a conflict of interest.  Lots of folks call it the fox watching henhouse.  No matter what you call it, it is just flat-out wrong and those who would support and encourage any action taken on this kind of bad science must be viewed with nothing less than great suspicion.  For this kind of “science” is when you can rest assured that its supporters  have a vested interest in personal gain, not some lofty goal for the good of humankind. 

It was argued to me that it is merely a few rogue, “flat-earth” or “fringe”-type scientists who are running around trying to destroy Obama’s U.N.-backed (gods help us all) plans.  Nice try but, frankly, it’s as wrong as the early Darwinians believing in and perpetuating the “romantic” view of the Middle Ages being the time it became common knowledge the Earth is spherical, not flat, when they used the same “flat earth” slur against Christians.  The Darwinians gleefully stepped into a stinky “scientific belief” that was the unfortunate – and wrong – result of Washington Irving’s 1828 fictional account of Christopher Columbus’ attempt to sail to Japan in a ship too small to make such a journey.  Fact is that most of the educated world realized the Earth is a sphere by about 3 BCE and only China, despite her technological advancements, took until the 17th century to come to the same realization (and then only because of Jesuits holding high positions as astronomers at the Chinese court).

The bottom line of all this is that is is best argued that there does NOT exist a collective consensus among scientists about the effects of humans on global warming.  And because of that it is dangerous for people to rush to any actions that will have long-term soci-economic ramifications when such long-term socio-economic ramifications are harmful the the majority of Americans solely for the great gain of a few.  Some proof of the size of the disagreement about global warming that liberals simply cannot get their brain cell around can be found in “The Petition Project”.  As of the latest NIPCC report (see Appendix 4, that details the purpose and process by which signatures are collected), 31,478 American scientists have signed the following statement:

PetitionProjectForm-sm

The NIPCC report goes on to state that, “This is a remarkably strong statement of dissent from the perspective advanced by the IPCC, and it is similar to the perspective represented by the NIPCC and the current report. The fact that more than ten times as many scientists have signed it as are alleged to have “participated” in some way or another in the research, writing, and review of IPCC AR4 is very significant. These scientists, who include among their number 9,029 individuals with Ph.D.s, actually endorse the statement that appears above.”

To quote the Mary Chapin Carpenter song, “the stars might lie, but the numbers never do.”  Emails are too easy to ignore, calls and/or faxes to your House Representative (both Washington and local offices) must go out starting tomorrow to tell them that no matter what Nancy Pelosi or President Obama demand, they work for you, the American people, and must vote against H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill.  Congress must know – in no uncertain terms – that rushing to tax ALL Americans on the basis of bad science is not only stupid, but putting already struggling American lives on the line solely for the sake of a greedy few will be the final straw that will cost them their job.

Another Look At Global “Warming”

By

Once upon a time, when I was just a child, I used to think that those who were bigger than me were therefore somehow also wiser. You know, people like mom and dad, scientists, and even the President. But as my adult years have passed, I’ve come to know that age is no guarantee of wisdom and that everyone has their own agenda.

It used to be that the agenda of scientists was a collective agenda to pursue an understanding of reality, a search for the truth of how things are and how they work. It was both a sacred and a noble task, this search; done for the sake of truth and truth alone.

But somewhere, somehow, the field began to be dominated by those who wouldn’t know a truth if it sat down beside them and introduced itself. Like a hamster on a wheel, many parts of the scientific community have become only never-ending churn in order to keep grants and funding coming in; as if busyness alone was enough to command respect.

It also used to be that the President of the United States was a leader. The one person who stood for the best this country had and could be, and who would die in defense of the freedoms upon which She was founded. We elected this leader to watch over the collective and keep us safe, and we sent representatives to work with the President for the same purpose.

But somewhere, somehow, being elected to the White House and to Congress began to be dominated by those who thought that being sent to serve meant they were smarter or somehow “above” those whom they represent. They, too, became like hamsters on a wheel, churning out more and more legislation that only restricts our freedoms and our rights instead of seeking to defend them; giving away what they, themselves, have not earned to those who have not worked for it either, solely to gain votes to stay in Washington.

When you put the two of these together, the scientists who value their titles more than their work and a President and Congress who see the people they represent as nothing more than an ignorant trough from which they are entitled to feed, you end up where we are today. Bad science dominates our government’s decisions, and whether it is due to the scientists need to pander for money from the politicians or the politicians seeking a convenient excuse from the scientists to pry more money and freedoms from America’s citizens, the result is the same: the monstrous myth of global warming.

It’s like watching a bunch of sheep go into a tailspin over the unexpected waving of a single blade of grass in the field and the hypocritical administration is now pulling out all the stops to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. If the TV commercial of late isn’t about some drug or another to correct erectile dysfunction, it’s about “green energy”. It makes me think about the impotence of tilting at windmills (that no one wants in their own backyard, mind you.)

I was sent this video today and decided to post it here. Trust the late George Carlin to put things into perspective.

Anyone up for sheering some sheep?

The Secret Tax (Popping The Cap Off Global Warming)

By

It’s fun to speculate sometimes.  It’s often called “dreaming”.  I’m sure that most every one of us has, at various times, fantasized about what we’d do if we won the lottery.

But in the world of science, speculation has only a very small place.  It is the spark, the germ, the seed that spurs action to collect actual data, evidence, by using rigorous control to avoid swaying results towards a specific conclusion.

Unfortunately, when money is in bed with science such objectivity too often goes flying out the window, almost as fast as Pelosi and Reid slam the door on Republicans when they schedule a budget planning meeting.  The evidence is gathered with a prevailing eye on what supports the initial speculation, since the spark, the germ, the seed was only about finding a way to make money.

That, boys and girls, is the story of global warming.  It is a tale filled with misadventures, missteps, and downright stupid mistakes, but all used to support only a way that someone can make lots and lots of money.  There isn’t anything the least bit altruistic about it.

In a minority report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, it is becoming more and more clear that the ideology of global warming is misguided at best, and at worst a means of global entrapment for the benefit of only a few.  That the United Nations remains a big proponent leads me to believe it is mostly the latter, for who has more vested interest in world domination than the U.N.?  And who has been Al Gore’s staunchest ally in leading the hue and cry against the dangers of global warming except the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

No one.  Until our President, Congress, and various members of the new administration bellied up to the old cap and trade bar and plunked down their money for a lottery ticket.  And though the numbers on their ticket don’t match the numbers displayed by those bouncing little ping-pong balls, they’re plotting and scheming to rig the machine to get the balls to drop in the order they desire.  They are, unfortunately, irritating our allies with their threats of economic penalties for those countries who won’t play along with their little get-rich scheme at the expense of the American taxpayers.  What it will also do is drive jobs overseas since the United States will no longer be competitive in the global market.  Something you might want to consider when you’re promising to “save or create 3.5 million jobs”, don’t you think?

It was a year ago that well-regarded scientists from around the world released what is called the “Manhattan Declaration”.  If you’ve never read it, it’s your lucky day for here it is in its entirety:

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

It’s pretty plain English to me.  And if you do some simple research, their case is well-documented and well-supported.  No one is saying that humans don’t need to start cleaning up their collective act, our trashing of Mother Earth can’t go on forever.  But to use “junk science” as a way to create a real climate change – a climate of fear – so that people willingly go along with the destruction of their economy is not only unfair, but as hypocritical as all the carbon disgorged by the jets that fly Al Gore and others to meet face-to-face (instead of using cost-effective internet live-meeting technology) to weep and wail about “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate extremes”.  Trust me, the latest round of nasty weather in the Midwest is perfectly normal and you don’t define warming by posting the last frost date for this year (used by gardeners) as coming later than the last frost date of last year.

The mainstream media isn’t thrilled about reporting this.  But just because the mainstream media thinks that supporting the administration in this lunatic delusion will somehow curry favor that will keep them operating doesn’t change the facts.  In the most simple of terms:  global warming is not a threat.  It does not need to be addressed at this time.  And it certainly doesn’t need to be addressed by the economic suicide of cap and trade.  Think about this:  Control carbon and you control the very air we breathe.

I’ll leave you with this sobering excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag — now Mr. Obama’s budget director — told Congress last year that “Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”

That ought to put the frost on your cornflakes.