Global Warming Hoax Update

From Don Surber:

After 35 years of telling us carbon dioxide is melting ice in Antarctica, New Scientist is now saying carbon dioxide has caused the ice to grow for 35 years.

What they said before:

From January 2, 2001: “Ice in the heart of Antarctica is retreating and causing sea level rise, scientists have shown for the first time.

From June 23, 2007: “Rising sea levels could divide and conquer Antarctic ice.

From March 25, 2008: “Antarctic ice shelf ‘hanging by a thread’.

From January 21, 2009: “Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change.”

From March 10, 2009: “Sea level rise could bust IPCC estimate: Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast and could end up taking sea levels to nearly twice predicted levels by 2100.

From July 31, 2011: “Antarctica rising as ice caps melt.

Got that?

Year-in and year-out, the editors at the New Scientist have warned us that the ice in Antarctica is melting fast…

So, what is New Scientist saying now? That the Antarctic ice cap is larger than ever, and that global warming is the cause.

Face it, we can’t actually win this debate – if glaciers start to cover half of North America, the global warming alarmists will be out there saying it is because of global warming. It doesn’t matter what the facts are because global warming is replacing religion in the lives of people on the left…they have to believe in something, and they’ve decided to believe that (a) humanity (mostly Republicans, it goes without saying) are destroying the planet and (b) only they – the liberals – can save it. You can’t beat someone’s religious beliefs; you can’t argue them out of it. All we can do is hope to win elsewhere enough political power to prevent these numbskulls from wrecking things in the name of saving the planet.

Global Warming Hoax Update


Critics of those who claim that man-made global warming is a serious threat to the planet and settled science frequently point to the fickleness of scientists on the issue, noting that in the 60s and 70s scientists were warning of just the opposite. It now appears the critic’s claims may have merit as a new consensus is beginning to once again return to the global cooling model…

Of course, this won’t stop our liberals – they’ll just say  its “climate change” and that it’s still all the fault of humans, especially Americans.

The bottom line of all this, however, is what I’ve been saying for years:  we don’t know what is exactly happening with the climate because our data are insufficient; if the world is warming (or, as it turns out, cooling) we simply do not know the primary culprit; finally, if it is changing and even if it is our fault, there’s not much we can do to stop it at this point so we’re just going to have to adapt to changing conditions…as life on this Earth has done again and again over the ages.

The reason I’ve called it a hoax is not because it is impossible for our climate to be changing, but because a hoax is a con…and people are trying to con us out of or wealth and our liberty.  This is, bottom line, a mere attempt by self-selected “leaders” to take charge of all aspects of our lives…and for these leaders to live very well while dictating to the rest of us.  It is just one in a very, very long line of scams.

$1 Billion per day?

There is big money to be made in “Global Warming” errr… “Global Climate Change”.  If Al Gore getting rich off this scam wasn’t a big enough clue…  no wonder “consensus” is acceptable scientific “proof” when big bucks can be made.

The lie that 90% of scientists agree that man made climate change is real has been thoroughly debunked due to their severely flawed “peer review” process…..

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this review, the IAC issued a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen IPCC’s processes and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports.IAC findings:

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).

In plain English: the IPCC reports are NOT PEER-REVIEWED.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).

Again in plain English: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “TOO POLITICAL” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Read more:

As the GOD_FATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK HAS ACCURATELY STATED the DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS WERE “INNACURATE” and the SCIENCE was far from “SETTLED”. It is factual that a true PEER-REVIEW of IPCC’s process found that their process was flawed, politically motivated. Forced consensus and its conclusions are complete crap.

Isn’t It Against the Law to Kill an Eagle?

If one (except a Native American) possesses an eagle feather, it is a federal offense.  If one, kills an eagle – even accidentally – one faces jail time.

Who will face jail time for this? No one…. when leftist policies kill people the left looks the other way.  Just another example of “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I am sure eagle deaths are more numerous than what is in the study.  My understanding is that the study relies on the REPORTING of eagle deaths and not an actual count.

Will the left protest the wind farms for killing animals?  Or, will they look the other way, since it is America’s icon (and the proggy push is to shame this country) and they feel it is a small price to pay for green energy instead of “enriching big oil”.

Global Warming Hoax Update

From Climate Depot:

Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record

“Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,”  says Steven Goddard website.

I know, I know – the cold in the Arctic is due to Global Warming – except for the increased CO2 caused by racist, sexist, homophobic, straight, white males, the Arctic would have just been as cold as usual this year…

UPDATE: Walter Russell Mead weighs in on the Greens, in general:

…Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact…

This is, of course, all true – but Mead is still a “warmist”; he believes it is happening and that human actions might play a role in this.  The reason Mead believes this is because he works on the assumption that there is some element of honesty and rationality on the left.  For all his knowledge and excellent analytical skills, Mead hasn’t woke up to the fact that the left – in its leadership – is corrupt to the bone.  All they want is power and wealth for themselves and they’ll use whatever bit of BS that comes to mind to obtain it.  I don’t know that warming is happening, at all – I think we haven’t sufficient data on temperature and on the internal workings of the global climate to determine if its warming, cooling or staying the same (though I doubt it is staying the same – it seems to me that fluctuation is rather built-in).  Because people in responsible positions assert that it is happening, people like Mead work on the assumption that such people are not necessarily full of ****.  Trouble is, they are.  The wise man, in 2013, works on the assumption that anyone on the left in a leadership position who makes a statement is lying until proven otherwise.

Think about it – they say they care about families.  Then why implement policies which destroy families?  They say they care about the workers.  Then why implement policies which make it harder to create jobs which will go to the poor?  They say they care about education.  Then why implement policies which make it ever less likely that a child after 12 years in school will be literate?  They say they care about women.  Then why implement policies which ensure that more of them will be aborted?  On and on it goes – what they say they want is directly attacked by the policies the espouse.  The explanation:  they are in it for themselves and it is more likely that they’ll gain personal power and wealth – without having to earn it – if they advocate policies which are actually destructive.  Like this:  you can work for a living, or you can live off those who will pay you in order to keep a corrupt, unionized bureaucracy in power over education.

So it is with the environment – liberals say they want to clean it up.  Ok.  So lets go full bore in to nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal and other technologies which will provide us abundant, cheap and clean energy.  Nothing doing, say our liberals – they want to go in for solar and wind which are ineffective, massively expensive but which provide all manner of opportunity for graft (on both ends – corrupt “green energy” companies get government subsidies in return for providing donations and well-paid sinecures for liberals on the make).  The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is, at best, weak – and yet this lack of evidence, cleverly parlayed by propaganda, has been used to give massive new powers to liberals while also enriching liberals.  That it isn’t happening and that their proposed solutions will only make things worse doesn’t matter…they’ll just keep at it because they are narrow minded, greedy and self-centered (in short, what they claim we are – projection is not at all unconscious in the left: it is deliberate, a means of deflecting attention away from their corruption and failure).

But here’s our real problem – a good portion of those who should be on the side of the angels (like Mead) simply haven’t grasped the fact that the nice, articulate and oh, so friendly liberals they socialize with are con artists…who know how to turn on the charm and present a bright face, at need (they also know how to turn the wicked, gangster face on, too…a good con artist will switch from one to another with great ease).  To be sure, in the lower reaches of liberalism you don’t find con artists as often as you find dupes…but even there, it is dupery with a purpose: a low level liberal knows that if he toes the party line, rewards will follow.  But on top – nothing but liars on the make.  Understand that, and the battle becomes crystal clear.