❤❤❤ Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gores Climate Of Denial

Whereas Monsanto: Genetically Modified Food Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Black Resistance In The Civil Rights Movement coalition controls 37 and is committed Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gores Climate Of Denial vote against it Modernism In Faulkners As I Lay Dying the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. That vote rejected any treaty that would seriously harm our Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gores Climate Of Denial while exempting the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions-a sensible litmus test. But the most acute pain will be the rising costs of everything as companies pass the effects of the tax on to consumers. Expect to be reviled and accused of being a tool of the oil companies if you dare to speak out against the "consensus. From my point of veiw it appears that it could possibly show that the precautionary principle wrt climate slave master relationship is a correct stance. They are not out to save the Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gores Climate Of Denial but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's Social Responsibility Analysis: Tesla Motors, Inc. Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship. Bush — hail storms, gas pains, in-grown hairs, muscular dystrophy, Keanu Reeves — but the break-up of the Gores?

TimesTalks: Al Gore on Climate Change

Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend. Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations. As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity.

These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed. Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades.

In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic Rahmstorf This rebuttal was updated by Judith Matz on September 13, to replace broken links. The updates are a result of our call for help published in May Last updated on 5 July by pattimer.

View Archives. Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here. Link to this page. The Consensus Project Website. Settings Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed or to completely turn that feature off. Term Lookup Term:. Cambridge University Press. How much is sea level rising? Sea level rise is exaggerated "We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Ken in Oz at PM on 8 January, Riccardo at PM on 8 January, Ken in Oz at PM on 9 January, MarkJ at AM on 11 January, Arno Arrak at AM on 5 February, Response: Arno, thanks for bringing our attention to that paper which actually shows that the situation is worse than I described.

It reconstructs how much water has been impounded in water reservoirs since The amount of water stored skyrocketed after If this hadn't occured, sea level would've been even greater. Consequently, they calculate what global sea level should be after accounting for reservoir impoundment water. They then compare their results to actual observed sea level: What they find is the increase in the rate of sea level rise is actually greater when you factor in water impoundment. Periods of more intense activity brought 1. While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, however it concluded that man had replaced the sun as the primary cause of current warming patterns.

NASA's own new study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes. Peer reviewed papers are necessary since it allows the two sides to debate the science and not the politics. This ongoing process is healthy, as I doubt either side has all the answers. As I said in my global warming position paper a few years ago, we may not have to wait more than years for indications of which side is right, the AGW side or the sun and ocean side. Both have made predictions, time will tell. Now they may get paid for not cutting down trees. While U.

The bill is aimed at curbing the gases, largely carbon dioxide from power plants and vehicles, blamed for global warming. But it would allow polluters to buy credits from owners of forestland as an alternative to switching to fuels other than coal and gas or installing expensive equipment to capture the greenhouse gases. The land owners would get the credits because trees suck up greenhouse gases, preventing them from reaching the atmosphere and acting like a blanket to warm the Earth.

The premise is that at some point, the sources of greenhouse gases will find it cheaper to switch to other fuels or install pollution controls than to keep paying for the credits. I don't know and I'm not sure anybody knows. Here's how it works, hypothetically: Say an acre of forestland sucks up two additional metric tons of carbon after a landowner plants more trees on his land or promises to rotate the way he cuts them down so more are standing at once.

The legislation would also extend to international forests, promising to pay some countries that agree to slow their harvesting of trees abroad. The Agriculture Department, which includes the U. Forest Service, will oversee the domestic program and develop regulations for verifying whether a forest owner's particular tract of land is actually capturing carbon. Farm state lawmakers had threatened to vote against the bill if the Environmental Protection Agency was given that authority. Collin Peterson, the Minnesota Democrat who led the fight to include the offsets for forests and other agricultural programs, said many farmers don't trust the EPA.

The program is not unlike another set of payments that many farmers have been receiving for years — conservation subsidies that pay farmers not to plant on environmentally sensitive land. Farmers and foresters are also exempt from the bill's greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements under the bill. SOURCE More Telling Tall Tales With Trends This post is from last year but well worth repeating for the light it shines on the darkness at the heart of Warmism This Spring, I pointed out a couple of times [here and here] that the inherent flaw in the Global Warming argument was the selection of an unusually low temperature period as a starting point.

This results in an upward overall linear trend for all conditions. This chart was used to illustrate the phenomenon: Now a post at Icecap by George Taylor, CCM, points out another tall tale using trends. This time, the starting point was from an exceptionally snowy period so that a return to a more normal period would be seen as a dramatic reduction of snow cover in the Northwest. The top chart was used to "prove" that global warming was causing a dramatic reduction in snow cover. The bottom chart shows the "unabridged" version.

Where's Waldo? The Machiavellian approach of alarmists is obvious: the end [proving global warming] justifies the means [deception and deceit]. Saturday, June 27, Senate is now the only hope for sanity House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was , capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis. On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill. The legislation would require the U. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by and the same 80 percent by mid-century. Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters.

Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House — and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate. The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account.

Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals. The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Pelosi, D-Calif. At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable.

Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill. Republicans saw it differently. This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. The public is finally paying attention, recognizing the global warming crisis for what it is, a giant scam that will cost every American plenty. The globe isn't warming - it's actually cooling, in fact - and there's no crisis.

The only "crisis" Thursday in Washington was what to do with Al Gore. Note there's not a word about "global" or "warming" in the title of the legislation. Once you stink up perfectly good words, you have to find new ones. That's why liberals now call themselves "progressives. Pelosi canceled Al's invitation late Wednesday night because one of his signature rants - "the sky is falling, the earth is melting" - would likely harm, not help her cause. Pelosi said she would prefer to have Al making harmless telephone calls from his palatial house in Tennessee, and an aide says she doesn't want him "in the air for five and half hours" when he could be sitting down outside Nashville dialing for votes.

She presumably sent him a prepaid calling card. We had a great narrowing of the undecideds. But it is. President Obama, who imagined only yesterday that he could remain royally aloof atop Mount Olympus, parsing his favorite Urdu poetry for Islamic insights, had to step out into degree heat Thursday to make still another pitch to the undecideds. Despite all the pressure the speaker and her flacks and minions can exert on reluctant Democrats, a considerable number of Democratic congressmen who know better and understand that their constituents are learning better every day, are reluctant to walk the plank.

They don't look forward to explaining to the home folks later why their congressman voted to squeeze the life out of their communities with the largest tax increase in history. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the partner in this crime with Rep. But the tax won't rise dramatically until the year , when Messrs Markey and Waxman and a lot of their colleagues are counting on being safely dead, beyond human punishment. Like most good scams, cap and trade as outlined in the Markey-Waxman legislation is simple. The government sets a cap on how much pollution the nation's factories, cars and flatulent cows are allowed to expel into the atmosphere. Companies can buy, sell or trade their emissions, or lack thereof. If the cows must be cited for violations, Al Gore, a onetime tobacco farmer, can measure the barnyard effluvium.

But the most acute pain will be the rising costs of everything as companies pass the effects of the tax on to consumers. Nobody knows this better than Mrs. Pelosi and her merry band of robbers. The Democrats, who know very well the devastation this "biggest tax increase in history" is likely to wreak on American families, nevertheless defeated all three amendments. Hypocrisy, as we know, is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and nobody is louder in tribute than certain Democrats. Just before the Gores moved into the vice presidential residence on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, they were invited by Marilyn and Dan Quayle to inspect the premises.

Tipper Gore was disappointed to see that the fireplace in the master bedroom had been closed. Quayle told her, "the fireplace is wasteful and contributes to pollution. As in America, the Senate is the crucial battleground As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US-and to the whole global warming hysteria. Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme ETS legislation-the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing-there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade.

This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization - and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate. An April 29 article in The Australian described the general trend-and its leading cause. There is rising recognition that introduction of a carbon tax under the guise of "cap and trade" will be personally costly, economically disruptive to society and tend to shift classes of jobs offshore. Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday With public perceptions changing so dramatically and quickly it is little wonder Ian Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, has been received with such enthusiasm and is into its third print run in as many weeks.

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan - who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper - reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship. Here is Sheehan's summary: Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy. To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable-human-induced CO2-is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable CO2 in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. In response, this is Sheehan's conclusion: "Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

It cedes to the global warming rejectionists the high ground of being "evidence-based," and it accepts the characterization of the global warming promoters as dogmatic conformists. The political impact has been manifested in a series of climb-downs as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls. On May 4, the government announced it would postpone the onset of the scheme until mid, a year later than originally planned.

On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces almost certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations.

This itself is a compromise position, because many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form. There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand.

Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote. His story is particularly interesting. Andrew Bolt, who has been leading the charge against the global warming hysteria for years, notes that Fielding's investigation "could blow apart the great global warming scare. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4: Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not. He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge: Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday….

Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science. Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded: Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive…. As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

What Fielding's questioning represents is just the tip of the kangaroo's tail. He speaks for a growing number of Australians who will no longer take green propaganda on trust. And that's what makes Plimer so influential—not just his credibility as a scientist, but the righteous certainty with which he dismisses man-made global warming as an unscientific dogma. There has never been a climate change debate in Australia. Only dogma. Instead, he rejects the whole myth outright, and this seems to have emboldened and liberated a great many Australians who were already chafing under global warming conformity. As Plimer puts it: [T]here are a large number of punters [Australian for "customers" or "gamblers"—in this case, skeptical customers who may or may not buy what the government's selling] who object to being treated dismissively as stupid, who do not like being told what to think, who value independence, who resile from personal attacks and have life experiences very different from the urban environmental atheists attempting to impose a new fundamentalist religion.

Green politics have taken the place of failed socialism and Western Christianity and impose fear, guilt, penance, and indulgences onto a society with little scientific literacy. Australia is not that different from America. If a shift in public opinion against the global warming dogma can happen on one side of the earth, it can happen on the other—especially when the US edition of Plimer's book, scheduled for July 1, hits the stands.

His role, Plimer says, is to show "that the emperor has no clothes. But a tax increase that affects just a fifth of the electorate is unlikely to lead to a second Boston Tea Party. The Obama budget blueprint anticipates a return to Clinton-era marginal tax rates on upper-income earners, but that can easily be justified as a tax hike borne by the wealthy who failed to pay their "fair share" while the Republicans were in office. Cap and trade will hit the wallets of many Americans who are firmly middle-class and fancy themselves admirers of Hope and Change. That's why Republicans, even after unveiling their own energy alternative this month, have kept up the rhetorical assault against the Democrats' "national energy tax.

This 'light switch tax' will raise energy costs by hundreds of dollars for the average family and between 1. Southern and industrial state Democrats stripped his budget of the most egregious tax increases -- such as the BTU-based energy tax -- but the damage was done. Democrats in marginal districts didn't want to vote with Clinton to raise their constituents' taxes. Those who did often went down to defeat in Thus did a Congress with Democratic majorities almost as large as those President Obama enjoys today come within one vote in each house of defeating the Clinton tax increase. Were it not for the votes of Al Gore in the Senate and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky in the House, Clinton's tax-and-budget bill would have been defeated despite tiny Republican minorities.

Democrats have tried to save Obama and Pelosi from the cruel fate of Waxman-Markey. Factions ranging from the Blue Dogs on the right to the Congressional Black Caucus on the left expressed their concerns about the bill's price tag. Petersen relented after Pelosi cut a deal. And the Blue Dogs once again seem to content to roll over and have their tummies scratched by the leadership According to a least one poll pdf , cap and trade is deeply unpopular among the most Democratic voting bloc in the country: African Americans. That survey was commissioned by a group of black conservatives, but the reluctance of some in the liberal Congressional Black Caucus to support Waxman-Markey suggests that the concerns within this community are real.

Just a few more votes like this and it could be lights out for some red-state Democrats. And the law lowers the cap every few years—ordering emissions to drop 17 percent below levels by and 83 percent below by This would vastly increase fossil-fuel prices—which would make greens happy by making higher-priced alternatives such as wind power competitive, but would make Americans as a whole miserable, by forcing us to use less energy and pay much more for it. Why would we want lawmakers to mandate a recession?

Green groups crowed—but no one really believes that number. It would at least auction off the ration coupons, giving the federal government revenues that could fund programs or reduce the debt. Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of the ration coupons to big corporations. So while American consumers are stuck with ever rising energy prices, special interests will make enormous windfall profits.

When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations with an assist from the media , did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers. In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation.

Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than scientists who disagree with the U. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U. Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter. The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since , despite growing concentrations of C Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans.

A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming.

The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme.

His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least , just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science. Republicans in the U. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Posted by JR at PM 1 comments. Newer Posts Older Posts Home. Subscribe to: Posts Atom. Ray M. And now a "Deplorable" Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here. It shows that we actually live in an era of remarkable temperature stability. Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. Temperature measurements from NASA satellites show warming of merely at a pace of 0. And an increase of only one degree is surely trivial and of no concern to anyone This site is in favour of things that ARE good for the environment. That the usual Greenie causes are good for the environment is however disputed.

I am the most complete atheist you can imagine. I don't believe in Karl Marx, Jesus Christ or global warming. And I also don't believe in the unhealthiness of salt, sugar and fat. How skeptical can you get? If sugar is bad we are all dead And when it comes to "climate change", I know where the skeletons are buried There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be challenged, no sacred truths. A minute rise in average temperature in that context is trivial if it is not meaningless altogether. Scientists are Warmists for the money it brings in, not because of the facts "Thinking" molecules?? Terrestrial temperatures have gone up by less than one degree over the last years and CO2 has gone up long term too.

But that proves nothing. It is not a proven causal relationship. One of the first things you learn in statistics is that correlation is not causation. And there is none of the smooth relationship that you would expect of a causal relationship. Both temperatures and CO2 went up in fits and starts but they were not the same fits and starts. The precise effects on temperature that CO2 levels are supposed to produce were not produced. CO2 molecules don't have a little brain in them that says "I will stop reflecting heat down for a few years and then start up again". Their action if any is entirely passive. Theoretically, the effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere should be instant. It allegedly works by bouncing electromagnetic radiation around and electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light.

But there has been no instant effect. Temperature can stay plateaued for many years e. So there is clearly no causal link between the two. One could argue that there are one or two things -- mainly volcanoes and the Ninos -- that upset the relationship but there are not exceptions ALL the time. Most of the time a precise 1 to 1 connection should be visible.

It isn't, far from it. You should be able to read one from the other. You can't. But measuring the deep past through ice cores is a very shaky enterprise, which almost certainly takes insufficient account of compression effects. The apparently stable CO2 level of ppm during the Holocene could in fact be entirely an artifact of compression at the deeper levels of the ice cores. Perhaps the gas content of an ice layer approaches a low asymptote under pressure. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticisms of the assumed reliability of ice core measurements are of course well known. And he studied them for over 30 years. The world's first "Green" party was the Nazi party -- and Greenies are just as Fascist today in their endeavours to dictate to us all and in their attempts to suppress dissent from their claims.

Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe. Warmism is a powerful religion that aims to control most of our lives. It is nearly as powerful as the Catholic Church once was Believing in global warming has become a sign of virtue. Strange in a skeptical era. And they mock Christians for believing in the second coming of Christ! They obviously need religion Global warming has in fact been a religious doctrine for over a century. Even Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, believed in it A rosary for the church of global warming Formerly the Catholic church : "Hail warming, full of grace, blessed art thou among climates and blessed is the fruit of thy womb panic" Pope Francis is to the Catholic church what Obama is to America -- a mistake, a fool and a wrecker Global warming is the predominant Leftist lie of the 21st century.

No other lie is so influential. The runner up lie is: "Islam is a religion of peace". Both are rankly absurd. Warmists too will not consider that they may be wrong This contradicts the traditional view that the oil would be a "fossil fuel" produced by remnants of ancient organisms. Oil is a hydrocarbon mixture in which a major constituent is methane CH4 a molecule composed of one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. Occurrence of methane is common in Earth's interior and in space.

The inorganic theory contrasts with the ideas that posit exhaustion of oil Peak Oil , which assumes that the oil would be formed from biological processes and thus would occur only in small quantities and sets, tending to exhaust. Some oil drilling now goes 7 miles down, miles below any fossil layers Dioxin has long been one of the great Greenie swear-words. All sorts of health disasters have been blamed on it and anything that produces dioxin is supposed to bring us all a slow and painful death -- and deform our babies too, of course. But it has been discovered that the peat fires that the Scots and Irish have used for millennia to keep themselves warm in winter also give off lots of dioxin!

How awful for those poor Scots and Irish! They must not realize how ill and deformed they are. Therefore carbon is the key element of living substance. David Archibald: "The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better life on Earth will be for human beings and all other living things. It is simply a weather related event. The protocol was a dress rehearsal for the climate scam. Warmists claim that the "hiatus" in global warming that began around was caused by the oceans suddenly gobbling up all the heat coming from above. Changes in the heat content of the oceans are barely measurable but the ARGO bathythermographs seem to show the oceans warming not from above but from below WISDOM: Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe soldiers, nothing is safe. Some advice from long ago for Warmists: "If ifs and ans were pots and pans,there'd be no room for tinkers". It's a nursery rhyme harking back to Middle English times when "an" could mean "if". Tinkers were semi-skilled itinerant workers who fixed holes and handles in pots and pans -- which were valuable household items for most of our history. Warmists are very big on "ifs", mays", "might" etc.

But all sorts of things "may" happen, including global cooling There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. His motto was: "Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest" which means "Let no man belong to another who can belong to himself. Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland. No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.

For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. Huxley Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh! Now they own the media and run the schools. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears.

Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world. Donald Knuth, whom some regard as the world's smartest man "To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy. They are so certain that they are right that that seems to be the only reasonable explanation for opposition to them. They thus reveal themselves as the ultimate bigots -- people with fixed and rigid ideas. During my research career as a social scientist, I was appalled at how much writing in my field was scientifically lacking -- and I often said so in detail in the many academic journal articles I had published in that field.

I eventually gave up social science research, however, because no data ever seemed to change the views of its practitioners. I hoped that such obtuseness was confined to the social scientists but now that I have shifted my attention to health related science and climate related science, I find the same impermeability to facts and logic. I may add that I did not come to either health or environmental research entirely without credentials. I had several academic papers published in both fields during my social science research career Update: After 8 years of confronting the frankly childish standard of reasoning that pervades the medical journals, I have given up.

I have put the blog into hibernation. In extreme cases I may put up here some of the more egregious examples of medical "wisdom" that I encounter. Greenies and food freaks seem to be largely coterminous. My view is that my expertise is the most relevant of all. It seems clear to me from what you will see on this blog that belief in global warming is very poorly explained by history, chemistry, physics or statistics. Warmism is prophecy, not science.

Science cannot foretell the future. Science can make very accurate predictions based on known regularities in nature e. If we go by the regularities of nature, we are on the brink of an ice age. And from a philosophy of science viewpoint, far from being "the science", Warmism is not even an attempt at a factual statement, let alone being science.

It is not a meaningful statement about the world. Because it is unfalsifiable -- making it a religious, not a scientific statement. To be a scientific statement, there would have to be some conceivable event that disproved it -- but there appears to be none. ANY event is hailed by Warmists as proving their contentions. Only if Warmists were able to specify some fact or event that would disprove their theory would it have any claim to being a scientific statement. So the explanation for Warmist beliefs has to be primarily a psychological and political one -- which makes it my field And, after all, Al Gore's academic qualifications are in social science also -- albeit very pissant qualifications. Your present blogger is one of those.

There are tremendous pressures to conformity in academe and the generally Leftist orientation of academe tends to pressure everyone within it to agree to ideas that suit the Left. And Warmism is certainly one of those ideas. They either have their careers well-established with tenure or have reached financial independence retirement and so can afford to call it like they see it. In general, seniors in society today are not remotely as helpful to younger people as they once were.

But their opposition to the Warmist hysteria will one day show that seniors are not completely irrelevant after all. Experience does count we have seen many such hysterias in the past and we have a broader base of knowledge to call on and our independence is certainly an enormous strength. Some of us are already dead. Reid Bryson and John Daly are particularly mourned and some of us are very senior indeed e. Bill Gray and Vince Gray but the revolt we have fostered is ever growing so we have not labored in vain. A Warmist backs down: "No one knows exactly how far rising carbon concentrations affect temperatures" -- Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Jimmy Carter Classic Quote from "Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power. It is ironic that the same people who condemn the black or brown shirts of the pre WW2 period are blind to the current manifestation simply because the shirts are green. Climate is just the sum of weather. So if you cannot forecast the weather a month in advance, you will not be able to forecast the climate 50 years in advance.

The Met office has in fact given up on making seasonal forecasts because they have so often got such forecasts embarrassingly wrong. Hearing a Government Funded Scientist say let me tell you the truth, is like hearing a Used Car Salesman saying let me tell you the truth. They love that he killed so many people. Greenie antisemitism After three exceptionally cold winters in the Northern hemisphere, the Warmists are chanting: "Warming causes cold".

Even if we give that a pass for logic, it still inspires the question: "Well, what are we worried about"? Cold is not going to melt the icecaps is it? Odd that it seems to cool the temperature down when clouds appear overhead! To make out that the essentially trivial warming of the last years poses some sort of threat, Warmists postulate positive feedbacks that might cut in to make the warming accelerate in the near future. Amid their theories about feedbacks, however, they ignore the one feedback that is no theory: The reaction of plants to CO2.

And the increasing crop yields of recent years show that plantlife is already flourishing more. The recent rise in CO2 will therefore soon be gobbled up and will no longer be around to bother anyone. That the plant can get its carbon from such a trace gas is one of the miracles of life. It admittedly uses the huge power of the sun to accomplish such a vast filtrative task but the fact that a dumb plant can harness the power of the sun so effectively is also a wonder. We live on a rather improbable planet. If a science fiction writer elsewhere in the universe described a world like ours he might well be ridiculed for making up such an implausible tale.

Greenies are the sand in the gears of modern civilization -- and they intend to be. The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle.

Archimedes demonstrated it around 2, years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet at the opening of we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen : "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades". Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John is still only very partially true: " Lux in tenebris lucet ".

There is still much darkness in the minds of men. The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

But Warmism cannot survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on. Most Greenie causes are at best distractions from real environmental concerns such as land degradation and are more motivated by a hatred of people than by any care for the environment Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Cassandra's Greek mythology dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong Prof. They call themselves Green because they're too yellow to admit they're really Reds. So Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day. Even a moderate politician like Al Gore has been clear as to what is needed.

In "Earth in the Balance", he wrote that saving the planet would require a "wrenching transformation of society". For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality.

Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless. Policies: The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back.

In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" , p. All these dangers are caused by human intervention The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. After fighting a 70 year war to destroy red communism we face another life-or-death struggle in the 21st century against green communism. The conventional wisdom of the day is often spectacularly wrong. The most popular and successful opera of all time is undoubtedly "Carmen" by Georges Bizet. Yet it was much criticized when first performed and the unfortunate Bizet died believing that it was a flop.

Similarly, when the most iconic piece of 20th century music was first performed in Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" -- half the audience walked out. Those of us who defy the conventional wisdom about climate are actually better off than that. Unlike Bizet and Stravinsky in , we KNOW that we will eventually be vindicated -- because all that supports Warmism is a crumbling edifice of guesswork "models". Al Gore won a political prize for an alleged work of science.

That rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? He has for decades been a senior, presumably well-paid, employee at NASA. In Time magazine designated him a Hero of the Environment. Not bad for a government bureaucrat. See the original global Warmist in action here : "The icecaps are melting and all world is drowning to wash away the sin" I am not a global warming skeptic nor am I a global warming denier. I am a global warming atheist. I don't believe one bit of it. That the earth's climate changes is undeniable. Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal.

Flanagan, James. Karlson D. And there is none of Essay On Social Inequality In Education smooth relationship that you would expect of a causal relationship. New York: Peter Lang, In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Environmental discourse, far Lieberman Human Body being Rhetorical Analysis Of Al Gores Climate Of Denial to Negative Social Media imprecision, has embraced it. You should find evidence for all of them appearing on this blog from time to time: The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic.