The next three articles are written and distributed freely by a Norwegian chap writing under the name of Fjordman, who once kept a well-received blog covering Islam, Scandanavian affairs, and global politics. We thank him for both his insight and his generosity. He has since closed down that blog but writes that he occasionally contributes to other blogs or websites such as Gates of Vienna, Viking Observer, and Jihad Watch.
UPDATE: The announcement above, and the articles which follow are reposted from several sources, including Jihad Watch and the Project Scenewash, the latter on October 20, 2006. What follows below will be dated appropriately, consigned to this update.
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization. According to The Independent, Jensen "has written numerous screeds accusing Muslims of secretly planning to take over Europe." Notably, he has advocated the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory in a self-published book titled Defeating Eurabia, and argued that all Muslims should be deported from Europe. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik quoted him extensively in his manifesto. According to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fjordman is "considered a 'hero' among the bloggers and debaters constituting the new far right.
ANWAR AL-AWLAKI, the radical Imam who was killed by a drone attack in Yemen masterminded the Ft. Hood and Christmas day terror attacks, and it seems he also has something in common with our very own President Barack Obama.
Al-Awlaki, a U.S. born citizen while attending college, falsified information on applications, giving him grant monies to the tune of $20,000 a year for his education as a foreign student from Yemen. We now know Awlaki was born in New Mexico.
The U.S. Agency for International Development grants money for educational purposes to foreign students. Shall we speculate on how many other terrorists we’re spending tax dollars on helping them learn how we live, how we play, how we think, how we react, so they can kill us more effectively?
Taqiyya: which shall be called "dissimulation" which is use of word or actions tending to mislead one's opponents...
Our magnetic President Obama has sealed his college records from both Columbia and Harvard Universities? Why would he do that, many keep asking? What is he hiding? Bad grades, disciplinary actions, what? We also know both he and his wife have lost their rights to practice law in the State of Illinois, but the mystery remains as to precisely why this is the case. Perhaps the records are sealed because Obama may have received monies from this same U.S. Agency for his education. By releasing these records Obama would be showing the world how he financed his education, shining light on the problem.
Let’s remember, after many years of hard work becoming a Harvard educated lawyer he voluntarily gave up his license in the state of Illinois. There have been rumors floating around for years that he took this action to short circuit disciplinary action from the Illinois Bar for not listing the many aliases’ and social security numbers he’s used in the past. These aliases’ and false social security numbers could and would lead investigators to his fraudulent applications for grant monies thus forcing the Bar to disbar him. This is not unlike what happened to his wife Michelle (she was court ordered to give up her license to practice law in Illinois in 1993).
As the President’s popularity now dips into the lower 40’s, which is the lowest for any president at this time in a presidency, his mismanagement of just about everything that’s been placed in front of him, is leaving the American People questioning “What have we done?”
Is it possible we have thousands of Muslims who are and have taken this same fast track into main stream America, but to pay it back by attacking its very existence? Is President Obama’s lack of concern for the millions of unemployed just another terrorist attack by another lying Muslim who has no love but buckets of taqiyya for the country that lifted him up from poverty? Is President Obama’s lack of concern for the protection of the American people from his co-religionist terrorists the payback to America and the ultimate in stealth jihad for footing the bill of his high powered education? Bowing to the Saudi king...
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
THIS MEANS AMERICANS COULD BE declared domestic terrorists and thrown into a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.
The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this presidentand every future presidentthe power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
Should one take the time to fully negotiate the links and rather frightening data provided in this article, the information whether correct or filled with errors should stand one's hair on ends. But this moment is one in which we can ponder the ideas presented to us, one by one. Because these by God, are THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Every citizen of these sovereign states must never forget that we have inherited a magnificent federal constitution which protects us, and even encourages us to stand boldly in the marketplace of ideas and insist that the truth be made manifest, no matter how difficult the task or the subject matter, as distinguishable from the reams of misinformation and disinformation earnestly flying off the tongues and keyboards and every media type of budding statesman, push button pundit, working class hack or back alley scoundrel available to us nearly twenty-two decades after this founding document was first ratified.
Whether we burden ourselves with falsehoods or monitor our freedoms by the lights of our liberty, we each are endowed with these natural rights of engagement in a free and prosperous society...
I have been following "halal jihad". What is halal? It is Shariah law compliant diet. It consists of religious ritual in preparation of food. For example, animals must be slaughtered by slitting the throat while the animal is still alive, and this is done while praying to Allah towards Mecca. In Europe, halal meat is sold everywhere. Examples: KFC, Burger King, Domino's, Campbell's Soup among many others. Here in America, Tyson has become shariah compliant, and Costco sells halal meat.
Now what does this have to do with the article posted here? Imams have instructed Muslims to take over the food industry with halal requirements, thereby the economy. Now Michelle Obama is giving them a foot in the door. The liberals don't believe in contributing to Bush's plan of giving money to churches, but Michelle Obama accepts help from Islam as it pertains to what our children eat. Anyone seeing the connection?
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
MANY OF US WHO WERE ALIVE during World War II and slightly thereafter may remember the famous quote regarding America being the “sleeping giant.”
“Be fearful of waking her!” Do not wake a sleeping giant. This is an idiom which means: Do not disturb/annoy/provoke someone powerful who was not disturbing you in the first place. Japan woke a sleeping giant when they invaded Pearl Harbor.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed at the very end of the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! and in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, as saying after his attack on Pearl Harbor [was quoted in the film], “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” The quotation was abbreviated in the film Pearl Harbor (2001), where it merely read, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.”
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Randall Wallace, the screenwriter of Pearl Harbor, readily admitted that he copied the line from Tora! Tora! Tora! The film’s producer, Elmo Williams, had found the line written in Yamamoto’s diary. Williams, in turn, has stated that Larry Forrester, the screenwriter, found a 1943 letter from Yamamoto to the Admiralty in Tokyo containing the quotation. However, Forrester cannot produce the letter, nor can anyone else, American or Japanese, recall or find it.
In The Reluctant Admiral, Hiroyuki Agawa, without a citation, does give a quotation from a reply by Admiral Yamamoto to Ogata Taketora on January 9, 1942, which is strikingly similar to the famous version:
“A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.”
Yamamoto believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States, and moreover seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder—even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a surprise attack. The Reluctant Admiral relates that “Yamamoto alone”—while all his staff members were celebrating—spent the day after Pearl Harbor “sunk in apparent depression.” He is also known to have been upset by the bungling of the Foreign Ministry which led to the attack happening while the countries were technically at peace, thus making the incident an unprovoked sneak attack that would certainly enrage the enemy.
After the war, a similar rumor disseminated among occupation insiders that upon learning the attack had been a success, Admiral Yamamoto had said to those around him, “Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog.” This would have been a tactical metaphor and not intended as an insult, since he was generally fond of America and Americans.
Today we play politics to death. We talk amongst ourselves and the politicians talk and talk in Washington. While I know rational thinking may ultimately rule, rational thinking without emotion ignores the passion that lights the fire of definitive action; and now is the time for definitive action.
Similar to the above quotation was another that, while real, was widely misinterpreted in the US press. Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms to the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington—i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto’s meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible—a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war. However, in the US, his words were recast as a jingoistic boast.
In a recent discussion with friends, we explored the issue of whether the United States is a “Sleeping Giant” any more, and if it is, what percentage of the population would constitute that “sleeping giant?”
Best estimates indicated that maybe 10-15% of America now would be considered the “sleeping giant” and the remainder of population is unaware of the serious threats to the United States, or are truly asleep at the “switch” and clueless to our continuing demise and weakening as a people and country.
I listen to the unfolding, ever more negative news each and every morning and the continuing ineptness so clearly on display by our elected and appointed leaders. At once, while struck with horror, I now feel strangely disconnected from the passions it stirs in me. I walk the river near my home with my dog into the sunshine of Montana and I want, and expect something to be occurring in this country that will awake America today. Even here in the beautiful and rugged mountains of western Montana people are hiking, golfing, strolling, smiling and acting as if nothing of any momentous consequence is occurring in or outside the United States. Our belief in our safety and security is being shattered, yet strangely, people seem to continue as if there is nothing to worry about too deeply.
There are so many more threats and risks to our families today then before 9/11 and thousands upon thousands of Americans have been killed across the globe since. While walking my dog, I look at the faces of people with these thoughts in mind, and I see people who look strangely blank or “normal.” But this is not normal. This is acting normal in the face of insanity. Therefore, I cannot remain calm, I must act.
I find myself thinking about World War II and the refusal of the United States to aid the millions of people being killed by the Nazis. The safety of our American sanctuary was shattered by Pearl Harbor and we woke up. Denial was no longer an option, and isolationism was no longer the rule of the day. Today we play politics to death. We talk amongst ourselves and the politicians talk and talk in Washington. While I know rational thinking may ultimately rule, rational thinking without emotion ignores the passion that lights the fire of definitive action; and now is the time for definitive action.
Personally, I do not believe in turning the other cheek. Yet, I do not want to become what I so despise—a fanatic driven by virulence and hatred as to do violence. I do not sanction any kind of fanaticism, because fanaticism feeds on itself and is driven by blind emotion. It demands unquestioning obedience and intolerance, rather than acceptance of diverse and genuine viewpoints. However, I do not believe in passivity either. Nothing goes away until you are willing to take a stand that says: “you may not cross this line because if you do, this will be the consequence.” Well, I am convinced that this line has been crossed. You hurt my people, you hurt my country – you hurt me.
I do not excuse dishonesty, corruptness, and behavior by members of Congress and the White House. Behavior counts, character counts! If a child of mine is threatened, I become a lion. If my people are threatened I feel a personal sense of violation that I need to react to in much the same way. If my country is threatened, my patriotism soars to its highest level, and my blood boils. Punishment for this transgression of my person and my country’s boundaries and way-of-life is essential; it is in my opinion, mandatory as a citizen. Instead of our current dissolution and chaos, we must reunite and roar like the lion we are, the father who is reacting to a wrong done to his child.
Enough politicking and talk
Action and retaliation are crucial. We have been so afraid to be the lion, afraid to be seen as the bad guy, that we have NOT drawn the line in the sand and said: “you may not cross this line or these are the consequences.” To take a stand is not being the bad guy. It is quite the opposite, it is to be lauded; taking a stand with very clearly defined consequences is being responsible. We need to do more than simply reacting, we need to be pro-active.
I believe we must reclaim our status as courageous warriors, as outraged fighters, as the parents of the child that has been set upon, and say to those that have crossed the line and caused us pain: “there will be reprisal and punishment.”
I want to see our people; our fellow citizens do just that, not just as a reaction to the current economic and security threats, but on a continual basis. It’s the equivalent of being a parent who is afraid of being firm and setting boundaries, letting their child run out of control for fear we may be thought the ogre, and then reacts only situation by situation, each time confirming softness instead of resolve. That parent needs to step back, size up the situation and say this is what MUST be done now, so we do not have to face it again.
The response must be reprisal and punishment, in a manner that is civil, yet unmistakable in message, it has to go far enough to forestall similar activity in the future. We must change our political philosophy, awaken from our lethargy, erase our apathy and above all, we must abide by our well designed Constitution.
Similarly, it must be conveyed that it is folly and foolish for other countries to confuse our softness and courtesy with weakness. However, we ARE, more than ever, a soft country. Politically, we make so many mistakes; most in the name of misguided politics, foreign perceptions ill-understood, and isolationism. We do not speak out strongly enough about abuses to people in so many other countries, and the blatant evil that exists.
To confuse our softness with weakness is beyond STUPID, it is perilous and self-defeating, and you cannot fix STUPID with politicians who think and act as they do here at home today. When this country is threatened, when our allies face any external threat, we can be very dangerous, and our enemies need to understand this with clarity and utter fear. At home, concerning our internal problems and our outward projection, we, as a unified country, must change that perception for our country’s safety. We must act now, decisively.
I believe we must reclaim our status as courageous warriors, as outraged fighters, as the parents of the child that has been set upon, and say to those that have crossed the line and caused us pain: “there will be reprisal and punishment.”
In our American Exceptionalism, one borne of varied and mixed cultures, peoples with differing origins, of diverse religious affiliations; putting aside our petty differences which keep our combined culture fragmented, is crucial. I am one of those “Sleeping Giants” that has been awakened and want you to be awakened, and join me as a “Sleeping Giant” freshly awoken, a giant no longer asleep that sees the light of day before it is too late and is willing to ACT.
Help Us Stir the “Sleeping Giant!”
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman of Stand Up America
WELL, THERE YOU GO AGAIN, AL GORE. Another spring of ferocious floods and a follow-up summer as hot as Hades in the good ole USA, and the festering wound of remaining global warmers have convinced themselves again that the ecological end is near, and a few last ditch efforts at a final solution are required to move their Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test bus forward.
Former Democrat Senator Tim Wirth, now heading up a lovely little left-wing operation started by Ted Turner called the UN Foundation, said, "The flooding and forest fires in the United States this year are evidence of 'the kind of dramatic climate impact' climate change models have predicted." Now, I suppose that would be pretty compelling if it weren't for the fact that those climate change models have been designed to predict any conceivable weather eventuality, thus producing a circular, self-validating illogic that only numbskulls and the petulantly dishonest would tout.
In other words, Tim, when your climate change models predict floods and droughts, aggressive hurricane outbreaks and no hurricanes, tornadic winds and breezeless calm, mild to hot summers and mild to cold winters, you have concocted a phony charade where you can claim you were right regardless of what occurs. That isn't science. It's snake oil. And it's one of the major reasons why the global warming movement has become such a joke.
Then there is the problem of fudging the data to slant not the real potential for catyclism but merely the reportage of said potential. It is becoming increasingly known that manipulating data to support a political end is a favorite pastime of the Warmers.
The most recent example of this unseemly habit surfaced when the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group was caught adding 0.3 millimeters of height to its sea level calculations every year. When called on this flagrant abuse of the data, Steve Nerem (the group's director) explained that they pad the numbers because "land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold."
Think about that for a few seconds, then read the entire article here.
New Evidence That Man-Made CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming. Al Gore and the global warming alarmists have long contended that man-made "greenhouse gases" are causing global warming so severe that it endangers our way of life. They claim the main culprits are the coal fired electric generating plants, airplanes, and automobiles that use hydrocarbons for fuel. And that the most damaging gas being emitted into the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2).The "global warmers" were making great progress at selling the American people on the dangers of man-made global warming and that we should greatly reduce, and in time eliminate completely, the use of our enormous reserves of coal, oil and natural gas.
Nobel Physicist Calls Earth's Temperature "Amazingly Stable".If the American Physical Society's numbers on global warming are accurate, the earth's temperature has been "amazingly stable" and "human health and happiness have improved" during a century and a half of minor climate change, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever said in a message to the APS, explaining why he is resigning from the society. Giaever cited a 2007 statement by the organization calling the evidence of global warming "incontrovertible."
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming.The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. Dr. Ivar Giaever does not agreeand put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change."I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
A Successful Fraud. Global warm-mongers say they can't name a single scientist who doesn't agree with them. Well, here's one: Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, who just left a scientific society because he believes the debate isn't over.
The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory. MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
Nobel Laureate Resigns Over Global Warming Dogma. Sorry to break it to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters, but the scientific genius you supported for President flushed hundreds of billions of dollars into slush funds and "green energy" rat holes, with absolutely no satisfaction of "the nation's and the world's most urgent needs," or enhancements to American "competitiveness."
Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care.A man named Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of a science journal called Remote Sensing decided to resign because he'd read on the internet that one of the papers he'd publishedby climate sceptic Roy Spencer, et alpossibly had some flaws in it.Bizarre, eh?
Physicist Resigns in Opposition to Claims of Manmade Climate Change.On September 13, physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, announced his resignation from the American Physical Society, disgusted by the company's officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."The American Physical Society officially supports the theory that man's actions have led to global warming through increased emissions of carbon dioxide, an assertion with which Dr. Giaever wholly disagrees.
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents!. Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.
Perry and Global Warming. Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming. There was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce. What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming. Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president.
On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds. Global warming racketeers end up doing science by press release. Their models are rigged, and any time they turn out wrong, they change the model. Then they send out more press releases to equally corrupt journalists, who phone in more scary headlines to the New York Times. Millions of suckered voters end up believing that the sky is falling, and they vote for socialist politicians like Obama to Save the Planet.
Irene is Obama's punishment.The past few years have seen significant body blows to the global warming theory, including major revelations of altered, misused or just plain fraudulent data, undue financial interests and appearances of impropriety among climate scientists, and contrived "carbon markets" closely tied to global warming alarmists who stood to make millions of dollars from government-mandated regulations like the now defunct "cap-and-trade" scheme. The Earth stopped warming 10 years ago.
Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and the AP on Global Warming. What Perry said was correct.The realists are winning the global warming debate hands-down, and their ranks are growing steadily.The anthropogenic global warming theory is not only unproven, it is contradicted by a vast body of empirical data, and has been shown to rest, to a considerable degree, on fraud.
Junk Science Unravels. The global warming fraud is coming apart faster than the alarmists can repackage and rebrand their fairy tale. Their elaborately constructed yarn can't hold together much longer. There are just too many loose ends.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget. While Americans are rightfully focused on the unemployment situation and the debt limit negotiations, we've pretty much forgotten about global warming as an issue ever since Obama failed to pass his Cap & Trade bill. As a result, we're becoming complacent once again about the huge threat we face from the progressives' attempts to control the world's energy industry based on the greatest scientific hoax in human history. In reality, however, nothing's changed, as Obama is still imposing his will on us through the EPA's regulation of CO2. This hoax still threatens our economy, while advancing the UN's "Agenda 21" in more ways than one. It's also the foundation of Obama's "green jobs" approach to the unemployment issue, since the very concept of "green jobs" is just as bogus as the idea of a "carbon footprint."
You're paying for the hysteria of our politicians.Whatever happens now, whether it is hot or cold, whether we get heatwaves or record snowfalls, floods or droughts, sooner or later we hear those familiar little voices piping up to tell us that the blame for all these 'extreme weather events' still lies on 'disruption' to the climate caused by the sinful activities of mankind.
Supreme skeptics. The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world's most august global warming skeptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoningthe global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issuebut in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.
Supremes retreat from climate panic. The Supreme Court dealt Al Gore, the Environmental Protection Agency and other believers in alarmist climate science a surprising and severe blow this week. In its June 20 decision on American Electric Power v. Connecticut et al, the court ruled that the mere existence of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse-gas regulations pre-empted lawsuits against coal-burning utilities on the grounds that the emissions constitute a public nuisance.
Lots of Hot Air After Activists Lose Climate Suit. This week, climate change activists suffered a major loss at the Supreme Court, which unanimously threw out their highly publicized lawsuit against power companies. Althoughor perhaps becausethe Court's opinion was clear and direct, the losing activists have sought desperately to spin a loss into a win.And the press's lackluster coverage of the decision only has helped obfuscate the Court's decision.
Why 'vote blue, go green' doesn't sound quite so clever any more. At this midsummer season, it is becoming traditional for me to draw attention to a striking prediction made by the Prince of Wales in March 2009. Speaking in Brazil, he said that the world had "only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse". It would be all over by July 2017, unless the right climate change policies were put in place.Since then, the world has certainly not made the changes for which the Prince was calling. That means that there are now just over six years left. One wonders why he bothers to prepare for the throne...
Climate Change Scientists Face Inconvenient Truths. Two different climate change scientists at opposite ends of the political spectrum have backtracked on their positions in the last couple of days, indicating that Al Gore's method of simultaneously scaring and inspiring everybody with graphs, while effective, might not be sustainable.
Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules'. The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a "null hypothesis." It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm.It has gone for a Burton.It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible. Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.
Still Hiding The Decline? Alarmist academics are being forced to show their work and they don't like it. Do they fear that a web of deception will unravel if their data are made public?
Was 2010 the Hottest Year Ever?According to the world's best-known climate change mouthpiece, 2010 was the hottest year on record. Wrong. It's yet another example of a political activist with a Ph.D. donning a magician's cape to try pull one over on the audience. In fact, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the warmest decade on record was the 1930s, with twenty-two of the now 50 states recording their highest temperature ever during those years. Thirty-eight states recorded their all-time highs before 1960. Likewise the hottest year on record was 1934. Even Jim Hansen's NASA unit has been forced to acknowledge this.
Regulation takes over when legislation is defeated.Yes, cap-and-trade is back again. The latest vehicle for delivering this immortal tyranny is the Clean Air Act, which has been mutated by ten year's worth of lawsuits into an open-ended warrant for the Environmental Protection Agency to give itself any powers it thinks it needs, any time it sees a problem it wants to address. Environmental activists persuaded it to declare "greenhouse gasses" a public health threat that required regulation. (You could hear the bureaucrats howling in pain as their arms were twisted, all the way from the lobby of the EPA offices.)
'Why will no one listen to us any more?' wails AGW propagandist. People, what is your problem? Didn't you know that this is the third hottest year in the entire history of the universe? Don't you care any more that it's all totally our fault?Are you really so sick and selfish that you don't agree any more that our landscape should be carpeted with wind farms and our economy bombed back into the Dark Ages so as to bring global CO2 levels down to the correct, UN-mandated level?
UN subterfuge: The global warming hoax. Today, Americans perceive global warming as a low priority item, and have turned their attention to our economic and security concerns. But big government agencies (UN and US) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to quietly expand UN influence, by teaching their insidious Marxist policies to the bureaucratic, naive, and idiotic.
17,000 People Who Don't Exist. Apostles of the Global Warming religion claim their "science" is "settled" and that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on man-made global warming. Well, there are over 17,000 verified signatures by PhD scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's call the Oregon Petition.
Cancunhagen. [Roy] Spencer is not skeptical about the fact that burning fossil fuels is increasing the carbon dioxide in atmosphere; that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; or that, all other things being equal, increased carbon dioxide will produce more warming. Although some activists have called him and his colleagues "denialists," Spencer concurs that there is no scientific disagreement over the fact that the Earth has been warming. "What we deny is that we have any certainty about how much of the recent warming is due to man," said Spencer."We deny that it's mostly man-made."
The EPA Versus the USA. First, there was no "global warming"; only the normal and natural warming that had been in effect since around 1850 when a 500-year "little ice age" ended in the northern hemisphere. Second, the Earth is now in a normal and natural cooling cycle, though with the added concern that it is also at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial cycle between the last major ice age and the next. Third, the data put forth by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been almost entirely discredited, based as it was on rigged research by corrupted university centers and governmental agencies.
Turn out the lights, the party's over. Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun. The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion.
Phony Claims Infest Cancun Climate Conference. At the United Nations climate confab in Cancun, Mexico, this week, the usual set of phony claims were once again trotted out to try to scare the world into submission. Claim One: A four-degree rise in global temperature is likely to occur during the 21st Century. Let's mow down the first claim first. I drive this point home in my book, Climategate, and the global whiners loathe it: Since 1850the beginning of the Industrial Revolutionthe Earth's average surface temperature has risen only 0.7° Celsius (just a bit more than one degree Fahrenheit). Point-seven degrees Celsius in 160 yearsthat's all. And this minuscule temperature increase coincided with the proliferation of the train, car, truck and even the lawnmower and leaf blower. Oh, and the bulk of this warming occurred before 1940.
New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau. Global warmers is in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as a new study shows one third of temperatures are not reliable. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that "since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C"; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis.
Can environmentalism be saved from itself? Mercifully, nobody will pay attention to the climate conference at Cancun next week, where a much-reduced group of delegates will go through the motions. The delusional dream of global action to combat climate change is dead. Barack Obama's cap-and-trade scheme is dead. Chicago's carbon-trading market is dead.The European Union's supposed reduction in carbon emissions has been exposed as a giant fraud. Public interest in climate change has plunged, and the media have radically reduced their climate coverage.
The Green Bubble is about to Burst. There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia's attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the "smoking gun" that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist. It has become increasingly clear that any observed warming during the past century is of natural origin and that the human contribution is insignificant. It is doubtful that any significant warming is attributable to greenhouse gases at all.
Climate change 'fraud' letter: a Martin Luther moment in science history. Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological "consensus" about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation. This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific "consensus" about global warming. His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community.
Voters Punish Supporters of Global Warming Restrictions. Senator Russ Feingold (D) thrust global warming front and center into the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, calling Ron Johnson's global warming views "bizarre" and "extreme" after the Republican challenger said he believes global warming is due primarily to natural forces, with solar variability the most likely factor. Feingold, who polls suggested was in a dead heat with Johnson prior to making global warming a central issue, saw his polling numbers quickly deteriorate, and he ultimately lost the election by 5 percentage points.
Motive Force Behind All Climate Change. There never was a compelling case for human caused global warming. The CO2 climate change hypothesis is not science, it is sorcery driven to hysteria by political opportunists. It is time to restore science to its rightful place.
Sustainable Oil Production? As researchers dig deeper into sources of climate change, we must seriously consider the concept of a molten Earth core fed by nuclear waste from a georeactor at its center emitting heat as well as the elements to form hydrocarbons creating petroleum.With great heat (including an abundance of CO2) escaping the crust by mechanisms such as hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor triggering major events such as El Niño ocean warming, we may be getting closer to climate change truth than the mythology of "man-made climate disruption."
Shattering the Greenhouse Effect. A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.' Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of 'greenhouse gases' and the 'greenhouse effect' is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.
CO2 as a radiation valve contravenes the laws of thermodynamics. "Heat-trapping gases," you hear, and "Radiation goes in but can't get out. "Well then, what is every explanation of the greenhouse effect pointing at but a radiation valve?Since heat rays are prevented from exiting to space, it is claimed, they have nowhere else to go but back to the earth which, by absorbing them, becomes warmer. Simple as it is, though, no scientist in the world is able to construct a model that exhibits any radiative gain because the theory's tenets (called "the basic science") are not valid. On a theoretical basis alone, conservation of energy (the First Law) forbids a model like this from working.
Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste. To prop up claims of the mythical abilities of atmospheric carbon dioxide to determine climate conditions, the warmists fashioned a radiant energy balance sheet. To avoid long term heating or cooling the energy inflows must match the outflows. Just one problem, one heat source is completely ignored. The AGW balance sheet shows ONLY solar input. The 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock that forms our planet is not melted, or maintained at present temperature by solar electromagnetic radiation. This planet is internally warmed by fission of the 700,000 cubic miles of fissionable material burning in our mantle.
A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? We've been told that the earth's surface is quite a bit warmer than calculations predict.Theory has it that heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" account for a 33° Celsius disparity. But it turns out that our airless moon is also quite a bit warmer than predicted. Might something be wrong with the prediction method itself, then?
US physics professor resigns from APS. "It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
My Resignation From The American Physical Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.
An important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science. What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today's Washington Post.
Climategate and the American Physical Society. Professor Hal Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society challenges the scientificas opposed to the merely politically expedientbasis of the "consensus" on global warming.
Greenism. In Canada Free Press I give many examples, in a variety of articles, of the myriad falsities inherent in the green movement. Sometimes, falsity can be accepted as a side-effect of stupidity, but not in this case.The green movement is the province of intelligent middle classes. So, why is it that these people come out with such nonsense? It's because their intellect doesn't match their intelligence, making them accept emotionalism rather than truth. In other words, they are prejudiced against reality.
More on Greenism. No sooner had I sent off my article on 'Greenism' to Canada Free Press, than I received notification that the leading scientific institution, the Royal Society, has backed down on its strident global warming claims! To put it frankly, that is one in the eye for the silly young geology graduate who decided to back the green horse in the MENSA journal.
Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules. The state of Texas today [9/16/2010] sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' [WOAI] reports.
WH Science Czar 'Global Warming' is 'Dangerous Misnomer'. John Holdren, our official fraudulent "Science Czar" for our equally mendacious President, has dumped "global warming" as a "dangerous misnomer. "Ah, yes, that would be it then. It's not the facts but the words that are wrong, says America's official Doctor Science. In scientific terms this means John Holdren has run up the white flag and is begging for mercy.
Global warming? It doesn't exist, says Ryanair boss O'Leary. In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as he agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.
Royal Society Reexamines Global Warming Position. The Royal Society of Great Britain, generally considered the nation's most prestigious scientific society, has announced it will conduct a review of a previous public statement supporting the claims of global warming alarmists. That statement had declared the "debate on climate change is over" and the planet is becoming disastrously warmer due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The Royal Society is reexamining its position after a growing number of member scientists expressed disagreement with the position of its leadership.
Climate Change Lies Are Exposed. The world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices. A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.
Al Gore's global-warming crusade shrinks.The fortunes of Mr. Gore's global-warming crusade certainly are in decline:A recent Rasmussen poll found that just 34 percent of respondents "feel human activity is the main contributor" to global warming and that the percentage of those who consider global warming a "serious issue" has "trended down slightly since last November."Mr. Gore himself is to blame for at least some of the public backlash against global-warming orthodoxy:Using bad science to justify bad policy will inevitably rub people the wrong way.
Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies. Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight. First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon. What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight. It's sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space.The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere. These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2.
Global Warming, R.I.P. In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes. He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world. Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2. Thanks to this highly skilled climatologist and his [new book], we can now taunt the often corrupt and overtly political planetary high priests with this: PDO means AGW is DOA.
Global Warming: Our Mistake, Never Mind. In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes. He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world. Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2.
Journalist's Guide to Global Warming Experts. Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recently told a reporter, "You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth."(Denver Post, February 12, 2008) I suppose it depends on what is meant by "dispute climate change. "My organization, The Heartland Institute, has been studying and commenting on climate change since 1995, making contact with hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts whose views on climate change certainly dispute the notion that "global warming is a crisis."
Catastrophism collapses.Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the US, where polls showas in Europethat the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism.The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress.Public opinion surveys now predict that this November's elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don't buy it.
Harry Reid's high-stakes climate bill gamble. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is planning a high-risk, high-stakes strategy for bringing climate and energy legislation to the floor ahead of the August recess. The gamble: yoking a bipartisan, fast-track measure to overhaul offshore drilling rules with a broad, contentious bill capping greenhouse gas emissions that otherwise would have almost no chance of passage on its own.
Democrats May Abandon Cap-And-Trade. The Senate is due to outline a new energy bill next week when it returns from its July 4th recess. Cap-and-trade likely will be a minor partif it is in there at all.Instead the bill will focus on cleaning up after the Gulf Oil spill and promoting green energy. It may include cap-and-trade for utilities, but even that is doubtful.
Carbon dioxide NOT causing a climate crisis, say scientists. "Contrary to the common assumption that only 'outliers' and unqualified researchers disagree with the theory of carbon dioxide-induced climate disaster, The Register demonstrates that many leading experts contest this hypothesis", said Register endorser Dr. Tim Patterson, ICSC Chair and Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada)."Many in the Earth Sciences community in particular have trouble with the concept that today's climate change is in any way unusual or driven by human activity. Climate has always changed, at times far faster than we are witnessing today, and it will continue to change no matter what we do."
From Climate Wars to Congress? As has been reported here regularly, global warming alarmists have been losing to their opponents on the facts, on their credibility, in the public's eyes. Now there's the possibility they could actually lose a Congressional seat to a climate realist, and that really scares them.
'Climate Climbdown'. The Royal Society of Britain is rewriting its official position on global warming. We'd say the consensus that man is causing the planet to heat is cracking, but there never was a consensus in the first place.
Climate alarmists on the run. Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes. How the tables have turned in a short time.
Are Climate Alarmists losing the Mainstream Media? In the past week, two mainstream media giants have apparently recognized that the debate over manmade global warming is far from over. On Monday [5/24/2010], the NY Times broke with years of blatant warmist bias in reporting that Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons . ... Now Newsweek has joined the newly aware, but with a dash more honesty.
30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can't Be Wrong. Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth. As explained by the paper's author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases."For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen's work shows conclusively that Al Gore's much touted "scientific consensus" supporting human-caused global warming is a myth.
It's the Sun, stupid.Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things:Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views.Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp.When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier.Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism.No longer.
Fearlessly Independent:An Interview with Ian Plimer. The idea that global warming is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is always taken for granted as the default assumption, and if you don't agree with it, you have to explain yourself. Let's reverse that presumption and put the burden of proof where it belongs: is there, or has there ever been, any evidence that CO2 drives the climate?Is this a theory that should ever have gotten off the ground?
Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming. Except we shouldn't use that word "sceptic" any more. Richard LindzenGodfather of Climate Realismtold us so in one of the keynote addresses. "Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition," he said."Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition. "Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to "improve their case over 20 years. "So paper thin are the AGW movement's arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority ("the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true") and cheap slurs.
Germans Say 'Alles Is Kaput' on Global Warming. Far from parroting the "settled science" canard, Der Spiegel points to many "open questions" of the science, and says "anyone who speaks with leading climatologists today will discover how many questions remain open. The media, politicians and even scientists often talk about changes to the weather with a certainty that does not in fact exist."
Inconvenient questions: With the fourth global Earth Hour put to bed last night, today let's ask some inconvenient questions of the global warmists. First, does the real-world failure of virtually all of your ideas ever give you a moment's pause? From the fiasco in Copenhagen, to the collapse of the UN's Kyoto accord, with its absurd, unrealistic, centrally-mandated, carbon dioxide-reduction diktats, mindful of the old Soviet Union? Does it never occur to you you've barked up the wrong tree rings? What about the humiliation of Climategate?
Climate change skeptics on your TV. The British press just can't believe that we can't believe it. Winning over hearts and minds in the fight against climate change has run into a cold front: America's television weather forecasters. An academic survey of more than 500 US television meteorologists found that one in four of them say there is no global warming, and 27% agree with the statement "global warming is a scam".
Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts. Two government press adverts which used nursery rhymes to raise awareness of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It said the advertisements went beyond mainstream scientific consensus in asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought. A total of 939 people complained to the ASA about the "Act on CO2" campaign.
Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists. At one time some would call them "deniers. "The more generous called them "skeptics. "But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else:sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed. Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up.
Time to get angry. With honorable exceptionssuch as UKIP and, on the environment at least, the BNPour political class seem to have absolutely no understanding of the grotesque injustices being inflicted on their electorate in the name of the non-existent threat of "Climate Change. "What will it take, I wonder, for these imbeciles to wake up and smell the coffee?Will a hung Parliament do? Or will it have to be bloody revolution?
Arizona Quits Climate Pact. The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow?
Accuweather's Bastardi Takes on Bill Nye & Global Warming on FNC. On Monday's [2/22/2010] The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Bill O'Reilly hosted a debate between global warming skeptic Joe Bastardi of Accuweather, and Bill Nye of PBS's Bill Nye the Science Guy, known for recently declaring that it was "unpatriotic" to dispute global warming. Bastardi argued that recent winter weather patterns are connected to El Niño, not global warming. He also linked sunspot activity to warming and cooling trends.
Climategate: Inhofe Raises the Temperature. [Senator James] Inhofe, a long-time critic of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming and of the "cap and trade" carbon exchange schemes, used his floor speech to point out to the Senate that the IPCC report included the infamous "2035" date for the disappearance of glaciers from the Himalayaswhich the IPCC has now been forced to retract.
They're finally admitting the science isn't settled. When was the last time you recall an alarmist such as Phil Jones admitting there was any doubt at all about warming in the last decade and a half? Haven't we had it drummed into us ceaselessly that the past decade has been the warmest ever recorded? Prof. Jones' admission to the BBC then is very significant.
Viscount Monckton Takes a Victory Lap. For several months, the "Monthly CO2 Reports," compiled by me, have been pointing out that there has been no statistically significant "global warming" for 15 years. Regular attacks on my calculations and graphs have appeared on blogs by the usual suspectsGavin Schmidt of NASA being, as usual, the most venomously ad hominem and the least scientifically plausible./li>