2008 Coolest Year of the 21st Century Thus Far by Former Author | Dec 5, 2008 | Global Warming | 16 comments Posted by Former Author on 5 December, 2008 at 11:59 am. 16 comments already! [DELETED BY AUTHOR] 16 Comments Hard Right on December 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm It’s because of the steps they took to save the planet that made their predictions incorrect (major sarcasm). Don’t laugh. I’ve had a few lefties say that to me. Reply road warrior on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm This whole issue is ridiculous and then you can listen to videos of Obama saying that this will be his number one priority when he takes office. Are you serious! Now i agree with the liberal illuminati that something needs to be done. We can just ignore the environment or someday we will have a real problem but this might not be the pressing issues that some want us to think it is. Reply Dave E. on December 5, 2008 at 3:29 pm Ok, some editor needs to be fired. The stylebook clearly says that 2008 should have been described as “8th warmest”. Reply Terrence on December 5, 2008 at 3:37 pm The fraudulent “chart” shows “Temperature relative to 1961-1990 average, C.” It does not show temperature over time from 1961 to 1990., which would show definite cooling, whereas this fraud shows “warming”, and a reduction in warming. This is best these dishonest scum can do. To them, anything is better than showing the obvious cooling since 1998. They will cling to the lies about “man made global warming” until well after the earth has its next ice age, which may be sooner than anyone wants. A lot more people die from cold than from a minor warming, which stopped in 1998, and has been wiped out by the recent cooling. Reply Craig on December 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm 50,000 Scientists Disbelieve Global Warming http://noworldsystem.com/2008/07/25/50000-scientists-disbelieve-global-warming/ And here, you will find more than 100 articles on the subject: The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960’s and 70’s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain. http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm Reply marinetbryant on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm From 2003. Longish but nails it. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html HT: MikeC at GCP Tom Reply marty on December 5, 2008 at 6:31 pm Ummm…not to disturb the flat earth crowd from your fantasies, but there are obvious errors in what you are saying. For instance: “The fraudulent “chart” shows “Temperature relative to 1961-1990 average, C.” It does not show temperature over time from 1961 to 1990., which would show definite cooling, whereas this fraud shows “warming”, and a reduction in warming. ” This is a nonsense statement. The temperature relative to an average is the same thing as temperature over time, it’s relative to an average over time. Secondly, short term cooling trends caused by episodic El Nino events no more disprove Global Warming than a paper airplane disproves gravity. According to this theory, if the stock market goes down tomorrow then that disproves that stocks will be worth more a hundred years from now. Finally, these supposed articles about scientists and organizations like WHO and APS reversing their stance on global warming are all complete hogwash. Just because you make up something doesn’t make it true. Here’s the truth about that: http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/07/20/american-physical-society-reverse/ Me thinks some people need some more education. Reply Craig on December 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm Global Warming Lie #5: That Darn Consensus Again Get it through your thick skull, Al: The science never was, nor is it still, settled. More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate. “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Read the rest: http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/global-warming-lies-that-darn-consensus-again.html Reply Mike's America on December 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm I Marty: I worked for years at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington. What additional education would you suggest? Please tell me after you describe your own credentials in this field. Reply Rocky_B on December 5, 2008 at 10:53 pm Here’s a point-by-point refutation of the Gore movie by Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. 35 Inconvenient Truths; The Errors in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth Movie http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html U.N. Scientist Professor John Christy rejects sharing the Nobel Peace Prize with climate alarmist Albert Gore Jr. http://www.globalwarminghype.com/Christy.html Global Warming – Following the money: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming. There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies. So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann. Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” ————————————————————————————— James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is, that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it. Maurice Strong: Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), A division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. ————————————————————————————— Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. ————————————————————————————— Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad. ————————————————————————————— Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 October 17, 2006 Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting: Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet. “The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264616 “The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained. Research grants: http://www.globalwarming.org/node/61 http://www.greentreegazette.com/articles/load.aspx?art=207 http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/c756f70bcbcbf3eb8525646d0075d656!OpenDocument http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html http://true-science.groups.vox.com/ Fiction: Global Warming – Follow The Money – True Science Science and the Bible are not inseparable. Through our own research we will find the truth and the truth will set us free. Most of what is being taught as science in this world is lies. If we follow the money we will learn this for ourselves. These scare tactics are being taught in our schools. I remember reading a statical sheet about the stresses of the worlds children. It said most of the children have problems sleeping and/or have nightmares because of the stress of global warming along with other lies being taught in schools around the world. My question is: Are we going to learn the truths of science and disprove all of the deceitful scare tactics that are harming our children’s physical health and their peace of mind. Question – Do we love our children more the party (protest) of false global warming. http://true-science.groups.vox.com/library/post/6a00d41440059a685e00fad69340010004.html Science Fraud at Universities Is Common — and Commonly Ignored Cross Posted from Senator Tom Coburns Website. Dr. Tom Coburn is the Pork Exposer. He’s been fighting for years now to end pork spending. This also makes him very unpopular in the Senate. By JEFFREY BRAINARD The Chronicle of Higher Education June 19, 2008 Acts of scientific fraud, such as fabricating or manipulating data, appear to be surprisingly common but are under-reported to university officials, says a report published today in the journal Nature. And the institutions may have investigated them far too seldom, the report’s authors write. Carbon Credits: Gore & Strong: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/global_warming_50.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0&refer=home The World Bank: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/wysham http://cleantech.com/news/206/morgan-stanley-makes-3b-carbon-trading- Carbon trading was a $21.5 billion market in the first nine months of 2006 according to the World Bank. That’s already up from about $11 billion for all of 2005. Some experts think carbon trading could be worth many times that within the next few years, and think it may peak in 2007 and 2008. Specialist investors like Morgan Stanley are lapping up emissions-permitting carbon credits and preparing to offer them to countries chasing targets as the 2012 date nears. Banks hope to serve as intermediaries – buying credits from emissions-cutting projects now and selling on to national governments and industry later – at a profit, of course. One estimate suggests carbon trading could be worth $1,000bn as the 2012 Kyoto deadline nears. U.N. Agencies: The United Nations Environment Program http://www.unep.org/ UNEP FI is a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. http://www.unepfi.org/ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7436263.stm The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realized without external funding. ————————————————————————————- This defeats the whole point of the CDM scheme, set up under the Kyoto climate change protocol, as these projects are getting money for nothing. The findings reinforce doubts that the CDM is leading to real emission cuts, which is not good news for the effort to combat climate change. And in one case a company is earning truly staggering sums of money from the carbon credits it is receiving – perhaps as much as $500m (£250m) over a period of 10 years – for a project it says it would have carried out without the incentive of the CDM. Carbon Credits AKA Carbon Offsets are nothing more than a fraudulent investment & trading activity of a nonexistent commodity. It gives big polluters a loophole to continue polluting and not pay restitution in the form of fines. Instead, they buy these carbon credits from industries that are awarded them for being non-polluters, giving them more money to invest. In actuality it does absolutely nothing. This scam could lead to the polluters and investors in Carbon Credits loosing vast amounts of money come 2012 if the Kyoto Treaty fails effectively pulling the rug out from under them. Watch for Gore and others to sell off all his Carbon Credits shortly before the deadline, which would create another organized financial crisis leading into the 2012 election. Reply Steve Rowland on December 6, 2008 at 6:44 am Marty: “According to this theory, if the stock market goes down tomorrow then that disproves that stocks will be worth more a hundred years from now.” ROFLMAO! So you are comparing global warming to stocks? Reply Terrence on December 6, 2008 at 6:57 pm Marty is an idiot, and a real hoot. But he is not very bright. Reply Rocky_B on December 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm Steve; If the end question in #11 you are asking about my #10 post. No, I’m not comparing Global Warming to the stock market. It isn’t about Global Warming, it’s about making bank on the myth of Global Warming. And yes Carbon Credits are indeed being traded as if they were a real commodity, there are companies on the market that are all about carbon credits with Gore & Strong laughing all the way to the bank on the gullibility of the environmental whack jobs. Carbon Credits is just a twist on the old “Emperor’s New Clothes” scam. Through pressure by the EPA and threats of fines, or worst forcing industrial plants to close, which means production halts, lay-offs, & likely bankruptcy they have strong-armed businesses to pay for something that doesn’t exits to remain in business. Environmentalist believe the lies that it’s all about Climate Change and Dems & the U.N. are actively doing something serious to reduce pollution when in reality it’s all about the money. The interesting thing is it’s not really tied to actual Global Warming/Climate Changes. Hence, you will not see Carbon Credit trading going up and down with temperature averages or the seasons. But there will be fluctuations based on so-called “green” legislation and as the Kyoto Treaty 2012 deadline comes closer, so the trading prices for carbon credits will likely continue to rise as will stocks for “green product companies as long as that money keeps flowing in”. That is, unless this house of cards Gore and others have built topples beforehand and the Carbon Credit market collapses. Then we’ll see those companies that are buying up this false commodity who can no longer get them at the mercy of the UNEP, the EPA in our country, & equivalent agencies in other countries. In our country they’ll be outside Congress begging for bail-outs or moving production to other countries for lower overhead costs and cheaper labor. Don’t you see the pattern in this? It’s the old “shell game” or “3-card monty” & not totally unlike what happened with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. In that case the threat was low income housing, and the banking corps were being “encouraged” to invest. In this case, Dems & the U.N. are telling showing the public Climate Change in one hand and telling us that carbon credits are the way to go, while selling Carbon Offset investment angles to companies from the other hand. Reply Lurkin'no-mo on December 8, 2008 at 7:23 am Arrghhh!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!! But, hey, temperatures are low…. Arrghhh!! GLOBAL COOLING!!! Hey, ya can’t have it both ways…. Arrghhh!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!! Man, ya just can’t win this argument. Reply Neo on December 8, 2008 at 8:09 am From the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland .. Rethinking Observed Warming Compo and Sardeshmukh must be considered heretics at NOAA. Reply Mike's America on December 8, 2008 at 8:29 am Thanks Neo. That would explain the uptick in land surface temperatures recorded over the last few years. Just as this explains the recent drop in land surface temps: http://www.greendaily.com/2008/03/24/nasa-scientists-puzzled-as-data-show-oceans-actually-cooling/ Meanwhile, the lower atmosphere, where any warming from greenhouse gases would be expected, is cooling: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11660 Reply Trackbacks/Pingbacks Brrrrr! 2008 Was Pretty Cold! : Stop The ACLU - [...] Flopping Aces has three questions, including: Third: Is this a debate over global warming or global governance? [...]Click to Edit – SaveCancelDelete Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.