This is from the esteemed one’s blog, in response to an inquiry from Bill O’Reilly, explaining why it is that global warming is responsible for the severe weather of late …
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
And there you have it from the worlds’ greatest authority: global warming causes blizzards. If you need further convincing, here’s a scientist who shares Uncle Al’s convictions:
The other day someone named “Inconvenient FACTS” sent me an email rant in support of global warming — ‘scuse me, “Climate Change,” to which he insisted it should more accurately referred. His rant included a link to a New York Times article wherein Al Gore was a bit pissed off about all the people ridiculing global warming by pointing to the mountains of snow in their yards.
In the article, Gore said: “The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.”
Well, I wrote a lengthy reply back pointing out some problems with their argument in support of Mr. Gore. My reply bounced, because the cowardperson who wrote me did so from behind a proxy and used a fake email address. I don’t understand the logic here — you sent me something in a clear effort to persuade me to see your point of view, something specifically requesting an opening of dialogue, but you left me no method of reply. How are we supposed to debate the matter, how are you going to convince me and sway me to your position, when I can’t reply? I don’t get it.
So, anyhow “Inconvenient FACTS” if you’re reading this, here’s what I tried to say to you … Continue reading
Have a look at this. It’s a power point presentation, so it will open a window asking if you want to run the file. You can either run it or save it and scan it first if you like. It’s virus free, but you certainly won’t offend me by checking for yourself!
Our esteemed President, Barack Obama, wants to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research. Very dramatically: the federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a 21 percent boost over 2010. This will bring funding to a level higher than under any past administration since 1989, when global warming first received federal budget funds.
It’s also interesting to note — though only as a matter of trivia, as it is totally irrelevant to the discussion — that when one takes into account the additional funding for climate science that is apportioned to a number of federal agencies (like the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation) overall climate funding is approximately as large as the entire federal government’s budget in 1932 — $3.994 billion. [FOX News]
I would like to believe that this latest admission will have some impact on his decision, but I’m not holding my breath:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
If the birthers are right, you no longer need to be born in the USA to be the POTUS. Therefore, we can elect Vaclav Klaus (the current Czech President) as our next president, and maybe we’ll have a capable leader with some intelligence.
Agree or disagree on whether global warming is real — and if so, whether humans are causing it — you still have to see the common sense behind his warning that allowing the government to control how it’s addressed is a Bad Thing. This is a road we do not want to travel.
As the Copenhagen climate conference drew to a close Friday, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, long a global warming skeptic, had a message for the world: do not dictate to humanity how to live based on an “irrational ideology,” which he sees as the product of political correctness.
Global warming is a “new religion,” not a science, he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.
“I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature,” said Klaus, an economist by training. “That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.”
Klaus, the second president of the Czech Republic since the fall of communism, is often called the Margaret Thatcher of Central Europe. In the interview, he sounded more like Winston Churchill, vowing to defend liberty and freedom from those who would restrain global economic growth.
“I’m absolutely convinced that the very small global warming we are experiencing is the result of natural causes,” Klaus told FoxNews.com. “It’s a cyclical phenomenon in the history of the Earth. The role of man is very small, almost negligible.”
Klaus believes man’s natural ingenuity can create new technologies that will lessen any impact that mankind has had on the planet’s environment. “I don’t think the radical measures just now suggested in Copenhagen are necessary,” said Klaus.
“Politicians and their fellow travelers, the media and the business community, simply understood that this is a very good topic to take on. It’s an excellent idea to escape from the current reality. Not to solve the crisis, but to talk about the world in 2050, 2080, 2200. This is for them an excellent job. They will not be punished by the voters for making a totally wrong decision, a wrong forecast.”
Klaus says that many interested parties get “a lot of money and influence” by backing the idea of global warming and organizing the Copenhagen conference, as well as its predecessor the Kyoto conference. “Some of them are really just rent seekers who hope to get some money either for their businesses or for their countries,” says Klaus. “Some of them are really true believers.”
The president reckons that environmentalism, executed on the scale suggested by global warming adherents, is a “real way to stop progress, industrial progress…and this is something unfair.”
Klaus fears that turning global warming into binding law would impede civilization as we know it.
“We’ll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave,” Klaus said. “What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments.”
Klaus thinks that the world’s “silent majority” would agree with his position on global warming. “I’m so sorry that Al Gore and others around the IPCC succeeded in influencing so many people,” he said.
There you go, kids. Straight from the mouth of someone who’s lived under the kind of restraint and control this country is heading toward.
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.
So what’s in those liberated files?
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.
Seriously, you should go read the entire thing. It’s well worth the time.
Next, there’s Al Gore, the Global Warming champion of the world. How hot is the core of the earth? Listen, as Al enlightens you:
Finally, have a look at this FOX News article about the nine errors in “An Inconvenient Truth” and a new documentary that challenges them with facts instead of fiction —
Al Gore’s award-winning global warming film “An Inconvenient Truth,” socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors, is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that seeks to rebut many of Gore’s claims.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists — Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In “Not Evil Just Wrong,” they challenge the claims made in Gore’s film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as “an article of science, not faith.”
This is another one you owe it to yourself to read.
Finally, one more quickie — this one defies description. I’ll give you a clue, and then you can just watch it: One World Government.
Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica …
But how can that be? Al Gore says it’s melting and Al couldn’t possibly be wrong!
Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
“Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,” Allison said.
Well, clearly Ian and all of his scientist and research buddies are just full of it. I mean, come on,AL GORE says it ain’t so.
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
Lies! Damned lies! The evidence is clearly bogus!
I can hardly wait to hear the spin on this one. You can read more on news.com.au.