Al Gore, Blithering Idiot

It’s getting decidedly cooler for Al Gore…

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

…[in the "master of the obvious" category]

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from skeptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

Relative to Gore, Bush was genius.

Radical Environmentalist = Eugenicist

I can’t get over just how wrong radical environmentalist are about virtually everything.

Carbon Scheme: Offset Your Jet-Set Lifestyle by Eliminating African Babies

December 14, 2009 ( – Population control groups have been using the hype surrounding the Copenhagen climate change conference to promote their solution to hypothetical impending environmental catastrophes. Earlier this month, two pieces appearing in the same edition of the Guardian revisited a report by Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT) that suggests that people in wealthy first-world countries should “offset” the carbon cost of their jet-setting lifestyles by paying to prevent the births of poor children in the developing world.

John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, wrote that the OPT’s report suggesting a “radical” plan to cut carbon emissions was the “best bet” to reduce global warming trends. In August, the OPT issued a report claiming to have made a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to work out exactly how much “carbon emission” a child born in the developing world costs.

Vidal pointed to the claim in the OPT report that the 10 metric tons of carbon emitted by a single return flight from London to Sydney could be “offset” by “enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.”

In the same issue of the Guardian, David Burton wrote in an editorial that the OPT offset scheme, called “called PopOffsets,” could be used to save the environment and “to help the world’s poorest women.”

“We get to fly around on jets while you abort yourselves, get to work.”

Whether the issue is the climate, global finance, or international relations, it is becoming clear that international politics has become a game of rich, white liberals using poor white, black, and brown people as pawns to extract wealth from the productive class of humans to distribute to the unproductive (Corporate/Government/Education Administrative) class.

Kick them while they are down

Send this link to everyone you know. It’s a pile on. Please note that it is an opinion magazine. It just happens to be right.


Climate Email Hackers = Galileo / Barbara Boxer = Inquisitor

Sadly, science has always been far more politicized than we want to admit. That said, let’s look at Dan Henninger in a WSJ article and video, and his view on the “Climategate” issue.

Next, let’s see what CA Senator Barbara Boxer says about the leak of the emails.

SEN. BOXER (D-CA): “I’ve been looking at these e-mails, even though they were stolen, they are now out in the public and we are now out looking through these e-mails…This is a crime, and I would ask unanimous consent to place into the record section 1030 of U.S. Criminal Code:

‘Fraud and related activity in connection with computers having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization’ it goes on, calling it a crime, so part of our looking at this will be looking at criminal activity”

Boxer video here


If the Tea Party Movement, 9-12 folks, and C4L types want to have some fun, they should get on Facebook & Twitter and start a social media campaign for Obama to a) Pardon the Hackers for their contribution to “scientific debate” and the “scientific method,” and b) Lobby the Nobel Committee to award them some “Science Prize” for the same contribution(s).

Here is the frame. The Hackers are Galileo, and their detractors are the Inquisition.

Just make EVERYTHING 100% Transparent

When you take all the corruption in Illinois government, all the unknown procedures at the US Federal Reserve, and the recent hacking of e-mails of the so-called “climate experts,” you come away with the obvious solution that virtually everything that impacts the public should be made public.

We’ve spent decades hearing that we leave things to the experts. Experts have destroyed our schools, our economy, our social discourse (see “political correctness”) and they are working on destroying the health care system. They certainly can’t be trusted with science. Make it all public, and make it all open source. We can figure it out. We are smarter than the “experts.”

[with perhaps small exceptions that relate to national security]

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.

The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.

As an unapologetic skeptic of the notion that man is impacting the climate, I applaud the fact that Ms. Curry (a warmist) is one of the people calling for more transparency. She thinks it’s the best way to persuade skeptics like me. Good for her. If the REAL science proves man-made global warming (AGW), all the better to set me straight. So far, however, I’ve been proven 100% correct in my skepticism of not only AGW, but of the motives and morals of those promoting it. Contrast her attitude with the poltroon below.

Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.

I’m sorry, but Mr. Schmidt doesn’t deserve much credence for having “integrity.” Nor do the governments and bureaucracies of the world, which are about to create a permanent, opaque, and almost certainly corrupt, climate scheme which will tax every person in the world and enrich every bureaucracy and corporation that participates in the scheme. Are we supposed to sit back and care about the false feelings of “integrity” of some a—ole at NASA who doesn’t want to bother with the world citizenry fact-checking his cooked numbers. I say, “to hell with him.”

I lack the time to list every example of talented amateurs outperforming “experts.” The Wright Brothers kicking the crap out of a “government funded” bureaucracy “studying flight” is only one of 1000s.

It is time to shed your respect for “experts.” Get it through your heads that with the Internet, and the technological tools available today, we each have it with in our means to live in an “open-source” society that is capable of discerning facts and figures as well as anyone.

So much for respecting Science

Man-made Global Warming is close to being in total free-fall as a theory. Remind your “warmist” friends that they were the same people attacking Bush on the misuse of science.

The Climate E-mails and the Politics of Science

There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity, and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement. Especially in anticipation of the major climate summit taking place in Copenhagen next month, the significance of this explosive disclosure is hard to underestimate. According to climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”

The evidence of scientific dishonesty supplied by these communications is so copious it’s hard to know where to begin an attempt to describe them. Many of the e-mails brazenly discuss the manipulation of scientific data either to provide the appearance of greater support for global warming science or to undermine the claims of skeptics. For example, CRU scholar Timothy J. Osborn explicitly describes how data can be reconfigured so that evidence of an apparent cooling period disappears. His colleague Tom Wigley discusses recasting the data on sea-surface temperatures so that the results seem considerably warmer but also scientifically plausible. The director of CRU, Phil Jones, brags about his use of eminent climatologist Michael Mann’s “Nature trick” which deliberately confuses scientific data to “hide the decline” in current temperatures.

Every person commenting on this starts with the obligatory sentences that the “hackers, of course, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” Nonsense!

They should be pardoned, and awarded some Nobel Prize for Science as a reward for exposing a massive and intentional scientific fraud.

Climate Totalitarians

The recent hacking of emails from a British University expose the mindset of the Climate Totalitarians. It is as we skeptics have said all along. These are bad people, as a group, and individually. They are morally compromised.

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“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,” Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

“Refined Statements” = lies. Michael Mann = Liar.

Daily Howler – Gore to make “climate” a “moral” issue

It is really hard to make a moral issue out of greed, lies, and imposition of a soft form of tyranny Al, but go nuts trying.

Gore Out To Change The World

In Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Gore argues that the prospect of disruptive climate change presents “a unique and unprecedented challenge” because its impact will unfold over decades and affect societies worldwide. Those are bigger units of measurement than political leaders usually work with when trying to build coalitions for action. “In other words, because of its planetary scope, this crisis masquerades as an abstraction,” Gore writes.

Huh? Check out the rest of the drivel in this National Journal interview.

NJ: Is the challenge more political than it is technological?

Gore: It’s fundamentally moral, ethical, and spiritual. To solve this crisis we cannot rely only on fact-based analysis and the kinds of short-term responses to which we are predisposed. We have to draw upon a capacity that we also have to form longer-term goals based on deep values, and build a sufficient consensus necessary to stay on a path toward those goals.

Perhaps because the latest “fact based analysis” shows a collapse of Gore’s pseudo-science? “Deep values” must refer to either religious beliefs (a core tenet of the environmental left) or perhaps the deep (cash) values Gore intends to earn by cornering the market of fraudulent instruments (carbon off-sets) his lobbying has created.

NJ: In the book, you are certainly skeptical that nuclear energy could grow to the magnitude that advocates such as Graham envision.

Gore: I am not an opponent of nuclear power…

Al Gore is an inveterate liar.

Ooohhhh No! There goes Kyoto! Go go, Gore-zilla

And not a moment too soon! I guess Captain Planet is going to have to find another “Man-Bear-Pig” to crusade against.

The Quiet Death of the Kyoto Protocol

Reading the climate-change news in recent weeks, one might wonder who won the last election.

The Obama administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol (ensuring it will expire), adopted some of former President George W. Bush’s key positions in international climate negotiations, and demurred when asked about reports that the president has decided to skip the December climate summit in Copenhagen. United Nations climate negotiator Yvo de Boer has concluded that it is “unrealistic” to expect the conference to produce a new, comprehensive climate treaty—which also describes the once-fond hopes for passage of domestic climate legislation this year—or even in Obama’s first term.

This is not how it was supposed to be.

Actually, that is EXACTLY how it is supposed to be.

Climate, like the stock market, will fluctuate

The Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up

Added to the equations are such measurements as past temperatures, barometric pressure and sea salinity. Calculations about the influence of sunlight are entered. Then various projections of greenhouse-gas emissions are factored in. The computers run the equations and generate projections of global temperatures.

The models are only as good as the information they are fed. One big uncertainty is ocean temperature. Oceans trap huge amounts of heat, and the process by which they release it over time affects the temperature of the planet. But there isn’t a lot of actual data, because the vastness of the oceans makes gathering temperature data costly and arduous.

The success of the models also depends on the soundness of their assumptions. The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet. The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation — and how clouds in turn affect temperature — remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently.

Re: Assumptions. For political reasons, everyone assumed that CO2 caused climate change, but if you really think about it. CO2 is much much more likely to follow warming, not the other way around.