Seizing Natural Climate Change by Politicans!

[thalassamania]

I'll see your right wing hack and stupid jokes and raise you the National Academy of Sciences' 2008 Edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."

At a time when responding to climate change is one of the nation's most urgent and complex endeavors, reports from the National Academies provide analysis and direction for policymakers and stakeholders. This booklet highlights recommendations from those reports in an easy-to-read format. Now in its third edition, the booklet includes an expanded section on impacts and updated figures and graphics.



Download Booklet PDF (3.3 MB)

[Papa Bear]

YouTube - Global Warming Hoax

[Papa Bear]

YouTube - The Myth about Global Warming

[Papa Bear]

Here is a really simple concept for those who think it is real science that is claiming GW is real!

Reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming are flawed and cannot be supported, investigators now report.

In a study reported in the Washington Times, a panel of statisticians, chaired by Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process.

According to the Times, "IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels." The Times notes, however that "several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed."

[Papa Bear]

[Papa Bear]

Al Gore's Global Warming Campaign Gains Another Detractor
Dennis Avery, Best-selling Author, Disagrees with Gore's Global Warming Conclusions
By Jason Bauer, published Aug 08, 2007
Published Content: 50 Total Views: 19,320

The Heartland Institute on Monday announced that Dennis Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is promoting related to global warming. Avery is the co-author of a book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years." In this book, he reached conclusions that are opposite to those Al Gore reaches concerning the consequences of global warming.

Al Gore and Dennis Avery both have books that are featured as New York Times best-sellers. The authors, however, disagree about the causes and consequences of global warming. Al Gore has gained many supporters over the last several years as he has promoted behavioral change to prevent a global disaster that he argues is sure to come. Avery and other Gore detractors disagree. Many prominent figures disagree with Gore, including Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT).

These scientists, economists, and other researchers have argued that Gore's claims are faulty. In Avery's book, he reports on the analysis of physical evidence from past warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations in solar activity that affects our planet's varying temperatures.

Avery states, "My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very dangerous anyway." He further says concerning his book and Gore's book, "These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other."

[thalassamania]

So who is Dennis Avrey and why should anyone listen to him?

Dennis Avery is the "Director" of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute (a radical right-wing front group), where he edits Global Food Quarterly. Avery crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology will save the world from starvation and disaster. He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides. Avery also disputes the scientific consensus on global warming. He is the author of "Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic" and similar right-wing tracts

Basically Dennis Avery is well know as an idiot and no mainline scientists take him or his quackery seriously. He is another one of those strawmen that the right wing creates and pretends is an authority. The Hudson Institute is a menagerie, disguised as an academic institution that chock full of shills just like him.

[Papa Bear]

Global Warming: An Examination of the Sun's Layers
An Overview of the Sun's Layers and the Implication on the Earth
By Chrissy & Company, published Nov 30, 2006
Published Content: 3,087 Total Views: 1,358,027

Font

Font
With global warming commonly studied in child science classrooms, many children are struggling to understand the dynamics of the sun and the mechanism by which heat is released into the atmosphere. The following is a general overview for parents in the description of the process by which the sun provides light and heat to the Earth.

Within the sun lies a gaseous core center, estimated to be approximately 27 million degrees Farenheit, this core provides all heat and light to the solar system. Through the development of gamma rays, at the core of the sun, heat and light is transmitted from this extremely hot core to the outer layer of the sun. Let's examine the travel of the gamma rays from the core to the sun's outer layer.

From the core, the next sun layer is commonly referred to as the envelope, or solar envelope. Although significantly cooler than the core, the solar envelope primary function is to maintain pressure against the core so as to stimulate the continual production of gamma rays, thereby producing heat and light.

From the solar envelope, we move to the next outer layer which is a thin low pressure gas layer known as the photosphere. It is from this layer that the light we receive, on Earth, is emitted. From the photosphere,the next layer we move to isthe chromosphere and then outer layer which is known as the corona. Although heat is emitted from the sun, at varying temperatures, the corona emits temperatures at one million degrees Farenheit.

For parents, understanding the essential elements of the solar system is crucially important to providing support and guidance to young children working to understand the solar system. Following these basic facts of the sun's layers, will provide parents with a more educated basis on which to build the knowledge of the solar system. For more information regarding solar systems and the Earth, visit www.nasa.gov.

[thalassamania]

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the indicted former Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, found himself a new home at the Hudson Institute. But at the same time Michael Fumento, a longtime Hudson Institute "Senior Fellow", became the latest right wing 'scholar' outed for being payed by corporations for writing columns without disclosing that fact.

BusinessWeek Online's revealed that Fumento had been fired by SHNS for not disclosing he had taken payments in 1999 from agribusiness giant Monsanto. SHNS Editor and General Manager Peter Copeland said that Fumento "did not tell SHNS editors, and therefore we did not tell our readers, that in 1999 Hudson received a $60,000 grant from Monsanto" Copeland added: "Our policy is that he should have disclosed that information. We apologize to our readers. ... The Jan. 5 column by Michael Fumento about new biotechnology products from Monsanto should have included more information. We believe the column should have disclosed a $60,000 grant from Monsanto that Fumento received in 1999 for a book about biotechnology. Fumento's column will no longer be distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, but is available from Michael Fumento..."

When BusinessWeek Online's Eamon Javers asked Fumento about the payments, Fumento described himself as "extremely pro-biotech." According to Javers, Fumento "said that he solicited several agribusiness companies to finance his book, which was published by Encounter Books (note: Encounter is essentially a project of the Bradley Foundation, another right-wing front). 'I went after everybody, I've got to be honest,' Fumento says of his fund-raising effort. 'I told them that if I tell the truth in this book, the biotech industry is going to look really good, and you should contribute.'" Fumento also allowed that the grant from Monsanto went from the company to the Hudson Institute and was aimed at supporting his work. While part of it went to the Institute's overhead, "most of it" was earmarked for his salary.

Between 1987 and 2003 the Hudson Institute received nearly $15 million from a several right wing foundations which includes the Carthage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.

The Hudson Institute is the same special interest advocacy group that was hired by the tobacco lobby decades ago to write and publish articles that would create confusion over the negative health care effects of cigarette smoking. Now, the Hudson Institute employs the same strategy of public misinformation to discredit affordable generic medicines in order to increase the sale of patented drugs to the benefit the US pharmaceutical industry. Recent tobacco-related litigation has uncovered key insider documents detailing the interaction and close relationship between the tobacco industry and US policy research/advocacy organizations. As early as 1971, the Philip Morris Corporation hired the Hudson Institute to create and promote "junk science" in an attempt to "debunk" the negative health effects of tobacco. One recently uncovered hand written document discussed strategies for fending off critics, including using "politicized science" designed to "create doubt in the eyes of the public -- in science; in politics; in risks," of cigarette smoking. A Hudson Institute report was one of two reports that were recommended for commissioning in the tobacco industry's secret document to promote it junk science. For decades, joint projects between Philip Morris and the Hudson Institute were often made-to-order. Characterized as "scientific lobbying", the Hudson Institutes's strategic model of influencing public policy is intended to "communicate with scientists," to "work the 'walls' of scientific meetings," and to "influence protocols of new research." The special interest group is even known to have used this same strategy on behalf of the agri-chemical lobby (another major funder of the Institute) to discredit the safety of organic food... Since 2000, the Hudson Institutes' Annual Reports show major funding from pharmaceutical corporations including Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the powerful lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA). Other large financial supporters ... have included major oil and agro-chemical corporations and ultra-right-wing family foundations. The Hudson Institute's program areas and policy initiatives overlap with its corporate donors' financial interests.

According to IRS forms, the Institute's Senior Fellows are paid between $100,000 - $200,000 for their "pseudo scientific" research and advocacy.

[Papa Bear]

The communists and left wing radicals have a new home and it is GREEN! It everything to them including a religion witch ignores facts, science, and the truth for a position putting MAN last! How many children must die on their alter to a false god? The press is in bed with them because they're left wing as well! When will we learn the trouble and the lies that these people will tell to take away what you have?

Will Media Report Global Warming 'Carbon Credit' Fraud?
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2007 - 22:54 ET

It’s conceivable that years from now, America’s media will be reporting one of the biggest frauds in history: the idea that a wealthy person, for instance, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, can purchase “carbon credits” to offset his lavish lifestyle making him quote “carbon neutral.”

Given the media’s love affair with the former vice president as well as advancing man-made global warming hysteria, few American press members have dared to expose this hoax for what it is.

However, on Wednesday, an impeccably reputable publication, the Financial Times, published an article that is a deliciously inconvenient truth for folks like Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and all the rest of the alarmists that are actively involved in what years from now will be considered one of the biggest scams ever: Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

Yikes. Think Charlie, Brian, or Katie might report this anytime soon?

Regardless of the answer, FT outlined its findings:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Amazing. Now, imagine for a moment that these companies were in either the oil, electricity, or healthcare industry committing such a fraud. Do you think this would be headline news?

If your answer is "Yes," why do you think this will be totally ignored?

I know; it's a rhetorical question.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.