Heartland is completely unrelaiable, and if you are relying on such sources, then it is hardly surprising that you are so woefully misinformed. Why would you take their line in preference to that of the national academies of science, the specialist research institutes, and the majority of relevant scientists? That is simply preverse!
Want to know a really funny thing? It doesn't actually matter whether climate change is happening or not. And it certainly doesn't matter what is causing it! All the proposed alleviation and prevention measures are worthwhile and necessary measures for other independent reasons; our reliance on finite energy and mineral resources, limited water and fertile soil resources, health problems, social problems, economic structural adjustment and so many other reasons.
Sydni posted a cartoon in green Atheists recently that made the point, what if we do make all these changes and we are proved to be wrong? The answer was that these damned environmentalists will have tricked us into a cleaner, more just and equitable, healthier, more economically sustainable etc etc world. The bastards!!!
Environment & Climate News > April 2010
Environment > Climatic change: Alarmism
Email a Friend
Written By: Review by Jay Lehr
Published In: Environment & Climate News > April 2010
Publication date: 03/03/2010
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Climatism: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic
By Steve Goreham
New Lenox Books, 2010, 480 pages
If you care about twenty-first century society, you must read Steve Goreham’s new book, Climatism. In my 55-year career as a scientist I have written more than 1,000 book reviews for various journals. No book has pleased me more than this one.
Unmasking a Dangerous System
After The Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in March 2009, Goreham decided to summarize, between the covers of a single book, everything everyone should know on this topic. In 390 pages of narrative, including 133 outstanding charts and illustrations plus 1,134 references from countless articles, he has succeeded.
Goreham has performed a service for the uncommitted citizen, which could one day lead to the unraveling of the new social order, religion, and political system Goreham calls climatism. While an ever-larger percentage of the public is beginning to recognize that man cannot and does not control the global climate, the public has no idea how thoroughly climatism has infiltrated the seats of world power.
The first five chapters of the book are filled with persuasive science presented in such a readable manner that the average layman will easily grasp it. For instance, we often hear about the concepts of positive and negative climate feedback, but few people understand their importance. The author explains these concepts clearly and shows how the asserted positive feedbacks that cause most of the forecasted warming in alarmist computer models are not happening in the real world.
In a section titled “Garbage In, Garbage Out,” Goreham explains:
“Model simulation results are not experimental data. No matter how many different models get similar results, no matter how many times models are run, if the underlying physical basis of the assumptions [is] wrong, the models will give the wrong result. And the modelers have been finely tuning the wrong result for 30 years.”
Chapter six, “Global Warming Disasters Debunked,” is by itself worth the price of the book. Here the author provides the reader with objective evidence to counter the plethora of unsubstantiated global warming scares presented by climatists and their media allies.
IPCC Farce Exposed
Few people really understand the origin, purpose, and composition of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Goreham pulls off the difficult task of explaining it more vividly than a sports commentator explains a key play in the Super Bowl.
In short, IPCC is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body. As a political organization, it works to achieve political consensus, not scientific truth.
IPCC, Goreham explains, created a process to achieve a “science consensus” confirming manmade global warming by effectively using six techniques.
The first was to assemble a large group of scientists to agree on a consensus. The second was to select authors of critical chapters who are predisposed to support the manmade global warming dogma. The third was to provide these authors with authoritarian editorial power.
The fourth technique was to encourage lobbying groups to pressure for consensus. The fifth: writing the conclusions before the science was agreed. The sixth and final technique was selective choice of science to support the dogma and minimize natural explanations for climate change.
The process has been truly Machiavellian, but IPCC has largely gotten away with it and most of the world believes the garbage they publish.
In chapter eight Goreham defines climatism in all its ignominious awfulness: “Climatism opposes the free development of human society and seeks to substitute autocratic control from centralized government bureaucracy. It calls for the radical transformation of our way of life, regardless of cost. Climatism demands adherence from all nations.”
In chapter nine, Goreham presents a vest-pocket guide to dissuading your friends of the prevalent false beliefs about climate. This chapter is a must-read.
In part three of the book, encompassing chapters 12 through 17, Goreham offers the finest tutorial on the hopelessness of renewable energy “solutions.” He draws heavily from Howard Hayden’s wonderful book Solar Fraud, as well as many other sources, and his investigative reporting style presents all this information in a very understandable manner.
Goreham really gets to the nut of climatism insanity in chapter 17, where he asks, “When has mankind ever been able to stop the rise of the sea? When have we ever been able to control the weather at a single location on Earth? Yet, climatism now demands that we switch to renewable energy, forego economic growth and consumption, and accept thousands of regulations on energy use for our home, transportation, business and recreation. If we do so, then we’ll be able to command the tides and control the weather. Climatism is a belief system--not a science.”
House of Cards
Climatism is big business. It financially supports modeling scientists and their multimillion-dollar supercomputers, environmental editors at newspapers, entire university departments, environmental vice presidents at thousands of companies, and huge government bureaucracies of climate regulators, enforcers, and consultants.
We now have a great many people standing on a house of cards, but the more people who read this book and spread the truth it contains, the sooner this house of cards will come tumbling down.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (firstname.lastname@example.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.
Environment > Climate: IPCC
Environment > Climatic change: Alarmism
Email a Friend
Written By: Washington Times
Publication date: 02/11/2010
Publisher: The Washington Times
Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.
The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts. Consider a few of the problems with the U.N. report that came to light over the past few weeks.
• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn't base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.
• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn't cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.
• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.
Getting facts wrong and citing dubious sources isn't the worst of it. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the U.N.'s climate chief, remained silent when he knew information was false and denied he had been aware of the Himalayan glaciers error before the recent climate-change summit in Copenhagen, which made a big deal about this nonexistent crisis. He only grudgingly came partly clean when Pallava Bagla, a writer for the journal Science, pointed to e-mail correspondence from last autumn showing Mr. Pachauri already knew of the fraud.
Adolescent name-calling further exposes the weakness of the case for man-made global warming and how desperate the leaders of this cult are becoming. On Feb. 3, Mr. Pachauri defended the fudged IPCC report and slandered critics as "people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply [asbestos] to their faces every day." This nasty piece of work tries to redirect attention away from his phony science by blaming skepticism about climate change on "business interests" that "spread a lot of disinformation."
Man-made global warming theory isn't backed up by science; it's a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It's time to admit it's all baloney and move on.
Here's my deal.. I think that the environmentalists have let themselves be turned away from the main thrust of keeping our planet as clean as possible by making the smallest negative environmental footprint as possible....by allowing the veracity of the Global warming argument to become the nexus of the movement.
Here's my deal... 'DON"T FUCK WITH THE AIR SUPPLY"... Is there really any argument for not putting every effort into making the tiniest negative environmental impact as possible?...and doing that SOONER, rather than too late? If we wait until there's overwhelming evidence that the use of fossil fuels are influencing climate change that even wealthy oil magnates will recognize it may be too late to do anything about it.
Don't keep cutting down all our oxygen-producing plant life. This is also only common sense.
"Don't fuck with the water supply".... Don't dump all your waste and toxins into the same fluid that you drink. Don't kill off integral parts of the food chain.
Again common sense... We can't afford to let the argument for smallest environmental footprint NOW....verses later get derailed by the arguments over the global warming models.
Its just crazy.... Fuck global warming...... Don't FUCK with the air supply is what we should be saying. We've got to breathe this shit!
You know they've banned smoking in restaurants and bars......and the right-wing religious have promoted this.
We might have more luck turning the global warming debate into a second hand smoke debate. It would pull the rug right out from under many 'right-wingers' feet.
(this last said with tongue only slightly in cheek)
Scepticism is both necessary and good, but only when it is part of a process of discovery and enlightenment; a quest to elucidate the truth, as far as we are able to currently understand it. Scepticism is not merely a willingness to question and doubt, it is a discipline of critical evaluation. There is a very definite distinction to be made between real climate change sceptics, who are genuinely challenging our assumptions and critiquing the specifics of the research (this is an essential part of the scientific method - it is one of the primary purposes of publication), and those denialists who pose as sceptics, but have no intention of objectively analysing the research, or of even reading it in many cases, but merely wish to dismiss whatever contradicts their preconceived position. This is where the similarity lies between religious faith and climate change denial - it is the willingness to twist whatever can be twisted to support their position, and the unwillingness to accept evidence, unless it appears to support that position. In contrast, scientists, and rationalists generally, usually modify their position when confronted with verifiable evidence which contradicts them.
Yes, yes and yes. This is what people don't see. The best debates and arguments come from the scientists themselves who can't afford to be persuaded by feelings and emotions. They have to be self-correcting continually. I don't want to accept anyones word on faith alone. I want the tests and models to be correct.
A volcanic eruption can dramatically affect climate and life on this planet by the tons and tons of material it puts into the atmosphere. We have historical evidence for this.
Its not a stretch at all to say that LESS is better than MORE when talking about the amount of materials we put into the atmosphere.
I don't want to kill ourselves by killing our economy either... There's got to be a way to phase in 'greener' ways of doing things that will help the planet and not kill us NOW.
As doone pointed out earlier, it is the fact that human civilisation has not faced such temperature change before that is the problem, not that the planet has not or that individual humans have not, and the density of our population removes many of the possible alternative ameleriorative strategies. We have little elbow room left on this planet, in terms of land, food, water etc.
Investment in the amelerioration of climate change is always presented as a cost, a burden, and yet it offers many of the new technolgical innovations of the future, and may create more jobs than are lost. Investment is what creates opportunity and wealth. And, as I stated, it addresses many others amongst the dilemmas that currently, or will shortly, face us e.g peak oil, finite mineral resources, limited water supply, limited fertile land, pollution, poor health, etc etc
Were we to wait for a 5C rise, as you suggest, then significant areas of the planet would already be uninhabitable for humans, or would support far fewer humans, and our capacity to intervene would likely have diminished beyond any practicable level. We can not afford to wait much longer to act, and that action may actually offer the solution to our current economic woes, not add to them. Imagine the difference to our lives had we invested trillions in sustainable and renewable technology, rather than hand it to the banking system - a system which creates many of the ills and dilemmas we face.
"Diurnal temperature variation is related to water vapour concentration, hence deserts (hot or cold) have greater diurnal ranges. This has nothing to do with proximity to the equator." OK, then how does this explain the frozen land about -20F along the western Alaska and Canadian coasts with the associated ocean at about 40F? They both have about the same relative humidity in the air?
It's because water is a good conductor of heat. As a matter of fact it has about 15 to 150 times the thermal conductivity that soil has. So, while the energy the ocean receives during the day is conducted down into colder water and the temperature doesn't go as high, the land tends to get hotter and re-radiate heat out into space more than water does (The black body radiation from a hot object has more energy than the equivalent sized colder body). So, the amount of re-radiated energy from land is greater than from water, so it should eliminate more radiation faster than water as indicated by the 'heat sink' we associate with the ocean. That being the case, more land in an area which receives more daylight radiation will radiate out more energy at night causing a net overall cooling effect compared to the same energy being deposited into water, all other factors being equal. Correct?