Recently in Opinion Category

By Matt Patterson, The Washington Times

Eco-autocrats are exposed as frauds

Poor Al Gore. As if an impending divorce and allegations of sexual misconduct from an Oregon masseuse weren't bad enough (he has since been cleared of wrongdoing), the apparent collapse of "cap-and-trade" legislation in the U.S. Senate has driven the former vice president to despair.

As reported by Steve Milloy on his blog Green Hell, Mr. Gore recently admitted to supporters in a conference call, "[T]his [cap-and-trade] battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year." Mr. Gore blamed everyone and their monkey for the failure of Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation, including his former colleagues: "The U.S. Senate has failed us," he lamented, "the federal government has failed us."

Illustration: Al Gore melting by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

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."

Read the rest of the article.

Reminds me of the Brave Sir Robin sketch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

By Marc Morano - Climate Depot

From King of the World to Chicken of the Sea: Director James Cameron challenges climate skeptics to debate and then bails out at last minute

ASPEN COLORADO: Hollywood director James Cameron challenged three high profile global warming skeptics to a public debate at a global warming and energy conference. But Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists "came out of the woodwork" to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest.

Cameron challenged Andrew Breitbart, Climate Depot's Marc Morano and filmmaker Ann McElhinney of 'Not Evil Just Wrong.' The debate was already in the program for the Aspen American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY) summit. The website program described the agreed to debate as "AREDAY Climate Change Debate: Reality or Fiction?"

After setting up the public global warming debate, Cameron and his negotiator then changed formats multiple times and initially said it would be open to the media and then said he would only participate if it was private with no recording devices. The skeptics agreed to all the changes. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

Cameron's cancellation of the agreed to debate did not happen until one debate participant (Morano) was already in mid-air, flying from DC to Aspen on Saturday August 21 to attend the debate.

Rest of the article.

Russell Cook, American Thinker

In his August 18 piece, Thomas Lifson mentions part of the logic behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call to investigate the funding of opposition against the Ground Zero mosque. When we also consider how the liberal left has aimed this 'funding accusation' tactic with great success over a period of 15+ years at scientists skeptical of man-caused global warming, her otherwise bizarre suggestion sounds like something that should be no surprise.

That is the accusation saying 'big coal and oil' funds those scientists, thus they are hopelessly corrupt and not worthy of consideration. The mainstream media seems to have taken this accusation at face value. Considering the sheer amount of anti-skeptic bias I found at the PBS NewsHour from 1996 to the present, as I detailed in my 7/29 American Thinker article "The Left and Its Talking Points", it may very well explain why the general public has not had the widespread opportunity to hear about skeptics' side of the issue.

Rest of the article.

Here we go...

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune

Every time there's a big blizzard or an extended cold snap, you can count on the climate-change skeptics, particularly those who host radio shows or draw editorial cartoons, to make "Inconvenient Truth" jokes and rehash an ironic appeal for more global warming.

Such wags go completely silent when we're clobbered by a heat wave, as we are being clobbered this weekend. Which, while inconsistent, is appropriate. Weather is not climate. Temperatures and precipitation levels are always going to exhibit dramatic swings.

Consulting today's thermometer for evidence either way about climate trends is ""like assessing how the economy is doing by looking at the change in your pocket," said a Columbia University professor quoted last month in the New York Times.

You knew this was going to happen, we have a warm summer (as was predicted because of the recent increased solar activity) and all the Chicken Littles in the mainstream press are running around screaming "The Globe Is Warming! The Globe Is Warming!"

Eric, you're right, it is hot out there, so I am officially changing my position, as of now I am for Global Cooling!

Of course this happens to me almost every August and in September I probably will be more neutral on the issue, but by January I'm pretty sure I'll be rooting for Global Warming again.

There are rumors of Brett's retirement and I say don't believe them. This was made last year but it still holds true, to the tune of Donavon's "There is a Mountain".

Now available for download!

Is It Hot in Here? Must Be Global Warming.

By Tom Zeller Jr., New York Times

In any debate over climate change, conventional wisdom holds that there is no reflex more absurd than invoking the local weather.

And yet this year's wild weather fluctuations seem to have motivated people on both sides of the issue to stick a finger in the air and declare the matter resolved -- in their favor.

"Within psychology, it's called motivated reasoning, or the confirmation bias," explained Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Project on Climate Change Communication at Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. "People are looking for evidence of any kind that validates or reinforces or justifies what they already believe."

Last February, for example, as a freak winter storm paralyzed much of the East Coast, relatives of Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is a skeptic of climate change, came to Washington and erected an igloo.

They topped it with a cheeky sign asking passers-by to "Honk if you ♥ global warming." Another sign, added later, christened the ice dome "Al Gore's new home."

Rest of the article.

By Elmer Beauregard

If you haven't figured it out by now, I am a Tea Party guy. I go to all the rallies and even have had booths at the rallies, I love the Tea Party movement. Lately however there seems to be some confusion about what the Tea Party stands for. Politicians are either trying to capture some of its energy or trying to besmirch it. So to clarify what I think the Tea Party is all about, I made this list.

Top Ten Things That Define The Tea Party

10. The Tea Party is all about Freedom, personal and otherwise
9. The Tea Party is True Grassroots, not top down authority
8. The Tea Party is for Protecting our Borders
7. The Tea Party is Against Big Government and the Nanny State
6. The Tea Party is Against Racism in all forms
5. The Tea Party is Against Globalism and the New World Order
4. The Tea Party is Against The Military Industrial Complex / War
3. The Tea Party Is Against Carbon Taxes and Global Warming Hype
2. The Tea Party is Anti-Federal Reserve and International Banks
1. The Tea Party is Anti-Tax

By Elmer Beauregard

The east coast has a few warm days and they are calling it the hottest year on record.

They can say that its the warmest year on record because they are cooking the books. They are measuring "worldwide" temperature from less and less weather stations which are mostly in heavily populated areas which tend to be warmer.

If you Google "2010 hottest year on record" you will get thousand of articles. This ties into my first Law of Global Warming which I call "The Chicken Little Syndrome" which states:

After an unusual warm spell, some people think that means the globe will burn up, so they run around screaming "The Globe Is Warming! The Globe Is Warming!"

This inevitably always leads to my second law of Global Warming or "God Is In Control":

Whenever the mainstream media comes out and says that Global Warming is for real, we get hit with unusually cold weather.

Let's not forget the now infamous January 1996 Newsweek Global Warming Cover Story that came out during the blizzard of the century. Newsweek later blamed the blizzard on Global Warming. This put a big dent in the Anti-Global Warming movement, and they were forced to start calling it "Climate Change".

By Elmer Beauregard

Nobody can dispute that there has been some global cooling in this last decade. Even though the land temperature charts aren't reliable, because the number of weather stations keeps changing and the stations are all at major airports or in parking lots. If the IPCC had their way I'm sure they would measure the entire earth's temperature from one weather station at LAX, just like they measure the entire planet's CO2 level from one station on top of a volcano in Hawaii.

Even with all the incoming data being skewed to show warming, it still shows some cooling over the last decade while CO2 is increasing.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

The Chinese system has nothing to do with "war" and everything to do with political oppression

When Senator Joe Lieberman attempted to justify draconian legislation that would provide President Obama with a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet, he cited the Chinese system of Internet policing as model which America should move towards.

Given the fact that Lieberman seeks to mimic the Chinese system as the goal of his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, should it concern us that the Chinese government routinely orders Twitter and Facebook-like services to "purge sites of politically "sensitive" words and expressions," as the Financial Times reports today?

"Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too," Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley last month.

However, China's "war" is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it's against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China's system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows.

It's a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

Rest of the article.

Anchored by Andrea Canning - Original Air Date: Monday July 12, 2010

ABC News Global Warming Debate Part 1:

by Stefan Theil, Newsweek

Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner.

Just three years ago the politics of global warming was enjoying its golden moment. The release in 2006 of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, had riveted global audiences with its predictions of New York and Miami under 20 feet of water. Within 12 months, leading politicians with real power were on board. Germany's Angela Merkel, dubbed the "climate chancellor" by her country's press, arranged a Greenland photo op with a melting iceberg and promised to cut Europe's emissions by 20 percent by 2020. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who called climate change a scourge equal to fascism, offered 60 percent by 2050. In December 2007, the world got its very first green leader. Harnessing the issue of climate change, Kevin Rudd became prime minister of Australia, ready to take on what he called "the biggest political, economic, and moral challenge of our times." Now, almost everywhere, green politics has fallen from its lofty heights.

Following two of the harshest winters on record in the Northern Hemisphere--not to mention an epic economic crisis--voters no longer consider global warming a priority. Just 42 percent of Germans now worry about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it a pressing issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Americans rank climate change dead last of 21 problems that concern them most, according to a January Pew poll. Last month Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasting climate change as a "sideshow" to global economic issues, canceled the meeting of environment ministers that has preceded the G8 or G20 summit every year but one since 1994. Merkel has slashed green-development aid in the latest round of budget cuts, while in Washington, Barack Obama seems to have cooled on his plan to cap emissions. In perhaps the most striking momentum reversal for environmental politicians, last month Rudd became the first leader to be destroyed by his green policies. Flip-flopping over planned emissions cuts as the opposition exploited Australian voters' flagging support for climate measures, he was finally ousted by party rebels.

Read the rest of the article.

By Patrick J. Michaels, WSJ

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Read the rest of the article.

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, Canada Free Press

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Read the rest of the article.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

Top elitist and Harvard Professor Kenneth Rogoff has shamefully called for the BP oil spill disaster to be exploited in order to create political momentum behind a carbon tax, even going to the lengths of embracing the nightmare scenario of hurricanes pushing the oil onshore as a way to create political momentum behind Obama's dreaded "green economy".

In an opinion piece for the Korea Times, Rogoff sensationally warns that failure to exploit the tragedy for political ends would represent a "lost opportunity," a startling display of mercenary indiscretion, and a shining example of what we warned about from the very beginning, that elitists would waste little time in pointing to heart-rendering images of oil-covered birds and dead wildlife as part of a crass stunt to push their consumption tax agenda.

Read the rest of the article.

By David Derbyshire, DailyMail

The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' scandal got his job back yesterday, despite being criticised by the official inquiry for being secretive and unhelpful.

Professor Phil Jones was suspended as head of the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia last year after leaked emails appeared to show his team manipulated data and blocked Freedom of Information requests.

But he was reinstated after a six-month inquiry cleared him and colleagues of wrongdoing and concluded their 'rigour and honesty' was not in doubt.
The university said the £200,000 official review should 'lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated' since the stolen emails were published online.

But sceptics condemned the report as a whitewash and said it left many questions unanswered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292703/Climategate-scientist-Phil-Jones-STILL-gets-job-back.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0t6pHRpgv

By Roger F. Gay, mensnewsdaily.com

As CNN explains it; "An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved." That seems to be the general conclusion offered by Muir Russell, chairman of the select group of political insiders who conducted the review.

The review focused on "the behaviors of the scientists in the climatic research unit in the University of East Anglia," which was at the center of the Climategate scandal. Russell provided a carefully worded public statement on the review.

"Those behaviors have been commented on in the light of a release - an improper release of emails in the autumn of 2009, not long before the Copenhagen conference. We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists. And that's a comment about the processes that they went through to produce their work, to handle their data, to have their work peer-reviewed, and so on. A lot of what they do makes a big impact on the advice that goes to policy-makers, both domestically and internationally, and we concluded similarly that these behaviors that were the subject of criticism had not affected the impact on the policy advice. What we did however conclude was that they had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data they were processing, about the stations they were analyzing, and so on. And we've made a number of recommendations both for them and for the University of East Anglia in terms of how it manages its freedom of information process, and how it manages its risk process."

It's a bit of a brain-sneezer to imply that the researchers operated generally as good and proper scientists in the way data was handled, their work was produced and reviewed, and then state that they were deficient in providing information essential to the processes. If the data can't be confirmed and the details of work aren't explained, it's not science. A series of unsupportable statements promoting an idea isn't science, it's a marketing campaign.

Read the rest of the article.

By Elmer Beauregard

I was checking out the blogoshere and the latest on Michael Mann and how he has been cleared of all wrong doing. I noticed that they are now admitting he did hide the decline, but now their saying that its no big deal.

An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann
Wyatt Andrews, CBS News

Tree data showing global temps going down didn't mesh with actual recorded temperatures, so pains were taken, (most of the time disclosed, but sometimes not) to use actual temp recordings and "hide the decline" from trees. Sometimes, on the so called hockey stick charts that show global temps as a flat line and then a sharp upward spike are indeed mixing tree ring data and actual temps.

The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit
Fred Pearce, guardian.co.uk

Jones and Mike Mann had been adding real temperatures to the end longer graphs of temperature estimates based on tree rings. The only thing being "hidden" was tree ring data that did not match reality.

This last statement is remarkable because it shows that what is being done in the realm of "Climate Science" is not science at all but rather politics.

By Elmer Beauregard

This weeks issue of Nature Magazine features an article on the Climategate controversy. Although they didn't mention M4GW, they did mention our video "Hide the Decline" and the threatened lawsuit from Michael Mann.

Mann has grown weary of dealing with the various groups that are criticizing him. "In reality, these groups are guilty over and over again of defamation, slander and libel, but that is far more difficult to fight legally," Mann says. "Even if you were to prevail, you would have invested potentially several years of your career, and frankly those of us who love doing science are not willing to do that."

We weren't quoted but they did include an image from our second video "Hide the Decline II". The thing that I found interesting from this article is now "Global Warming" Scientists seem to be more interested in the polls about what people believe than what the temperature is doing.

Instead of graphs tracking global temperature these charts are tracking if people "believe" in Global Warming or not and what kind of support there is for carbon taxes.

The article says nothing about what the scientist were caught saying in their emails and if they were fraudulent or not, but rather about how to do damage control. They want to "humanize climate scientists" to regain the public's trust. Here's an idea stop lying to us!

I had to chuckle upon reading this paragraph:

Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist who studies public perceptions of climate change at Stanford University in California, has also seen a slight erosion in public belief in global warming over recent years, although he stresses that overall support remains high. He thinks that the cool weather of 2008 helps to explain why the population changed its opinion. "The way they decide whether climate change is happening is by sticking their finger out the window," he says. "If we get another hot year, those numbers will go up again."

He's saying the unwashed masses are stupid for not believing in global warming because its cold, basically repeating the same old mantra "weather is not the climate". But then he goes on to say that a hot year would make people believe in Global Warming again and that is a good thing.

So let's see, if we have a cold year that doesn't disprove global warming but if we have a hot year that proves global warming? And they wonder why people don't trust them.

Oh and that Hockey Stick Chart that Michael Mann was going to sue over, he himself is starting to downplay it.

By Elmer Beauregard

The Good: Obama Did Not Mention Global Warming Once. He didn't say anything about a consensus or overwhelming evidence, we seem to be winning on this issue

The Bad: He still calls the energy bill a "Climate" bill. Even though Global Warming is a dead issue Obama is still going to tax us for emitting CO2.

The Good: No Mention of "Peak Oil". It's hard to say we're running out of oil when its covering most of the Gulf of Mexico (from one well). Just like its hard to believe in Global Warming when your freezing to death.

The Bad: Obama did say that there is no more oil on dry land. Excuse me, what about ANWR?

& The Ugly: Said he will have to tax energy! Sure Obama is going to make BP pay for their misdeeds, but BP will also benefit greatly from the new energy bill. BP is a huge player in "Green" energy, so what they lose on the oil spill side they will more than make up for on the Cap & Trade side. Plus, when gas goes to $5 a gallon BP will double their profits without lifting a finger. And who is going to pay for all this? The American people.

By Elmer Beauregard

It turns out drilling for oil in water a mile deep isn't such a good idea after all, and ANWR is being looked at again as place to drill. But the same old arguments against drilling in ANWR are also coming up again.

The main reason for not drilling in ANWR is that it is too "Environmentally Sensitive", but I think that the Gulf is way more environmentally sensitive than ANWR. Here is a list of things that we wouldn't have to worry about if we drilled in ANWR.

Things that the gulf's environment has that ANWR doesn't have.
Fish, Shrimp, Turtles, Birds, Swamps, Beaches, Trees, Oceans, Gulf Streams

Things that ANWR's environment has that the Gulf doesn't.
Permafrost

By Elmer Beauregard

1. "It's either me or the planet Al"

2. "it was always global warming this and global warming that"

3. Tipper finally reached the "Tipping" point, get it?

4. Whenever Tipper was on the internet Al would say,
"I invented that you know".

5. Tipper had to walk everywhere to offset Al's jet travel.

6. Al spent too much time polishing his Oscar.

7. Tipper wasn't buying all this Global Warming crap.

8. Al needed an excuse to buy more seaside villas.

9. Al is trying to reduce his Carbon Footprint.

10. Al constantly playing Frank Zappa at full volume.

By Phil Kerpen, Fox News

President Obama has been very made clear that his top domestic priorities are health care and global warming. We all know what happened on health care. Now the date is set for the key Senate showdown on global warming: June 10. That's when the Senate will vote on a resolution introduced by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (S.J. Res. 26) that would overturn the EPA's global warming regulations. It's not subject to filibuster. There is no place for weak-kneed senators to hide. In just two weeks we'll know where every member of the Senate stands.

As I've previously discussed here in the Fox Forum and documented on www.ObamaChart.com, the Obama administration is not waiting for Congress to enact a national cap-and-trade program to move ahead with its global warming agenda.

Under the watchful eye of White House Climate czar Carol Browner (who originally developed the legal theory of using the 1970 Clean Air Act as a global warming law, bypassing Congress) the EPA is moving forward on a staggering regulatory power grab that includes about 18,000 pages of appendices and will eventually regulate nearly every aspect of the U.S. economy.

Rest of the article.

By Henry P. Wickham, Jr.

When evaluating in an honest way all factors that contributed to the current pollution of the Gulf, we must ask why BP was drilling in 5,000 feet of ocean when there are so many other accessible and safe alternatives. There are large deposits of oil shale in Western Colorado that could easily and safely be extracted as it is now in Western Canada. We have all heard of the huge deposits of oil in ANWR, on Alaska's North Shore. Because of improved drilling technology, all available oil in ANWR can be extracted by using only 2,000 of its roughly 19,000,000 acres.

BP now drills in 5,000 feet of ocean because these better alternatives have been foreclosed to the oil industry. Environmental groups have effectively stymied this safe and relatively easy production of oil in the name of some higher but more nebulous good. Where they once rationalized their campaign against oil companies based upon the threat of environmental degradation, environmental groups now use the increasingly dubious claims of global warming to justify their obstruction.

Rest of the article.