(A big hat tip to Tom Nelson for the following stories)
First up! Mr. Al Gore:
The head of a group founded by Al Gore told lawmakers on Thursday that the former vice president’s goal of generating all U.S. electricity from clean, renewable sources within 10 years is ambitious but attainable.
Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that there were no technological or other obstacles in the way of clean power.
Now that is news. The head of a group founded by Gore endorses Gore’s idea. Just shocking!
As the Official Carbon Advisor, Camco Global will “work with the DNCC to estimate the Convention’s carbon footprint.” Who is Camco Global? One of Al Gore’s investments, of course. The Blood and Gore team (Generation Investment Management, with chairman Al Gore and managing partner David Blood – a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) has purchased almost ten percent of Camco Group…
Bias and swindling….Gore’s specialties.
Now a look at just whats behind the face of a man-made global warming fanatic:
When I began to organize around climate issues about five years ago, I noticed something about myself: I began to subconsciously belittle the work that other people were doing that was unrelated to energy and global warming. Sure, I recognized that their work was good, but I fell into the trap of thinking that their work wasn’t nearly as necessary as mine. In addressing the causes and effects of global warming, I was, from my point of view, tackling the greatest problem facing humanity.
To be specific, a good friend of mine was involved with the Center for Community Service, working to schedule visits to the retirement home a block from campus. She was struggling to find enough people who could take the time out of their day to do something worthy in the community. At the same time, I was struggling to convince my campus administration that global warming was something they should address on an institutional level. Through my training as an organizer, I believed that I was working towards lasting change, whereas the work she was doing would never be complete; she could never declare victory. As such, I felt that visiting the elderly was not as worthy of my time as my organizing.
In the years since then, I often felt a surge of self-righteousness and pride in the belief that I was working on the most worthy cause ever…
Why do these activists feel such fear for the climate? People like Roger Pielke Jr know:
Climate change is the new locus of the U.S. culture wars. Unlike the abortion issue which was turned into a referendum on morality by the political right, the climate issue is fast becoming a referendum on morality by the political left. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
The adoption of the climate issue by the ‘Left’ represents a total departure from politics, and a total disconnect with human values. It is not so much ‘abortion politics’, then, as much as simply, ‘politics aborted’. It’s claim to the moral highground is equally tenuous.
It is in this atmosphere of political (and moral) exhaustion that environmentalism has thrived. Politicians struggle to connect with people, and so escalate the sense of crisis in order to elicit their participation, and legitimise their own positions. The real crisis is not in the atmosphere, it is in politics.
But the environazi’s continue their shrill cries that the science is settled at every opportunity:
Unfortunately for the sceptics, and for everyone else, the evidence for human-induced climate change is stronger than ever. Scientists the Herald spoke to were candid in their assessment that there was little room for doubt that global warming is happening and that the only changes in the past few months have been political changes.
“It looks as though the population believes climate change is serious and there seems to be momentum behind the issue, and there are some people who don’t like that,” says Chris Mitchell, head of the CSIRO’s Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction group. “There are still plenty of creationists around, and there are people who believe tobacco is not linked to serious health effects, and so there are still people who choose to ignore or doubt the amount of evidence for climate change.”
Andy Pitman, an editor of the prestigious international Journal Of Climate, says there are good reasons why global warming sceptics cannot get a run in peer-reviewed scientific literature. “We would kill, literally kill, for a good paper that proved the science on global warming was wrong,” Pitman says. “Then I could retire and accept my chair at Harvard. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen, and there’s vast amounts of evidence why.”
That last paragraph makes me chuckle every time. The reason why they can’t get into peer-reviewed literature is because they don’t have the evidence? Puhlease.
It doesn’t end there tho:
Pitman, who is also a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ABC) and director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, says the reasons are simple: “In essence, the models we use to predict climate have been proven right.” In the past decade, he says, refinements in computer simulations have allowed scientists to accurately predict climate in four dimensions: time, latitude, longitude and depth of the atmosphere.~~~
Claims that solar activity may be causing recent global warming, reinforced in State Parliament by the Treasurer, Michael Costa, have been comprehensively demolished in peer-reviewed journals.
Oh boy….talk about a guy with his head in the clouds.
Roger Pielke Jr. does some demolishing of his own on some climate model predictors:
What this paper tells us is that global climate models that do not adequately resolve such landscape features as the Andes cannot accurately simulate climate variability even on seasonal time scales in the Amazon. The obvious conclusion with respect to multi-decadal global climate predictions is that skillful regional projections of climate change due to human climate forcings are also not possible until global models accurately include such terrain features as the Andes.
A look at our European friends shows us that some Germans are complaining about the costs of all the unnecessary emission reduction programs:
At a meeting of government and industry officials on Tuesday, July 15, Germany’s Deputy Economics Minister Jochen Homann and all other speakers said that the EU plan was not business-friendly.
“The conclusion of the conference is that there is only limited scope for reducing “emissions” in the industrial sector and the EU climate package needs improvement in key areas,” said the ministry in a statement.
The ministry was particularly critical of the EU’s goal to cut the quota of emissions trading permits by 21 percent, compared to 2005 levels, saying this would cost Germany both jobs and growth. As a major burner of fossil-fuels, which cause unwanted CO2 emissions, Germany would be especially hard hit by the plan, added the ministry.
And lastly I just had to put up this excellent demolition of the climate environazi programs worldwide and what it will mean to the planet by Ed Ring:
Global environmentalism, despite a veneer of exhuberance and a facade of hope, today is mostly about doom and gloom. Extreme environmentalists, more powerful today than ever, at root are complainers, they are indignant, they are doomsayers, and they are dominant today for reasons that ought to be challenged. Perhaps the world is going to come to an end if we don’t all do exactly what they say. And perhaps it will not. In many cases environmentalism, and the policies to enforce it, already constitute the most regressive hidden tax in history, and global warming alarm will catapult these hidden taxes into the stratosphere of economic stagnation. With carbon trading and carbon taxes and carbon offsets set to eclipse rational environmental policy, our economy and our way of life are what is in peril, not our planetary icecaps, and only financial traders, professional accountants, attorneys, credentialed consultants, academic experts, corporate cartels and the public sector will benefit. The temple of ecological green will fill with the changers of the financial green, and common sense will be coopted and coerced by the color of money, no matter how the game is called, or how the rules are set. With global warming alarmist policy, we will rob from the poor and give to the rich as never before.
There is a lot of junk science out there on both sides of the environmental debate, as always with all debates, but extreme environmentalist junk science seems to be carrying the day, so that is where we most appropriately ought to shine our scrutiny. Daunting, to put it mildly, is the stupifying volume of all these authoritative and ostensibly terrifying studies. Example – yet another recent (and highly publicized) report reviewed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) called for additional and significant new regulations and levies. Citing “expert” studies, the report projected approximately 300 additional deaths in California due to additional pollution over the next few decades, unless massive corrective actions are not immediately undertaken. Despite its portentious tone, such a study is not an imperative, rationally compelling us to move towards a socialist police state, because it rests on utterly unimpressive projections – 300 deaths within a population of nearly 40 million is a statistically trivial outcome. There are infinite and totally unforseeable random outcomes, from infinite conceivable causes, that could reduce a population of tens of millions by a few hundred lives over a few decades.
The idea that anyone or any study can project economic or demographic results so far into the future with details so specific and fine is simply ridiculous. Equally absurd is that such fluff might suffice to justify transformative economic policies. If the California Air Resources Board takes something like this seriously, perhaps the entire agency should be eliminated and replaced with people who care about air pollution, not climate speculation and draconian policies that follow from such exercises of counting angels on the point of a needle. Yet whether it is 15 score additional dead in decades from now, or catastrophic collapse of every global ecosystem in the world within the same brief span, extreme environmentalists carry the public scene today, preaching like the saviours in Salem, burning witches and pressing life out of the truth with relentless stones of rhetoric both formidable in craft and terrifying in content.
The picture he paints is very real. The results of the programs these environmental nuts want to institute would be catastrophic to the economy in this country and any benefit would be minute.