Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy.
Feb 5th
The Netherlands are a bit confused. They have to be, there is no way to explain this away and still maintain any validity in the IPCC.
According to the 2007 IPCC Report, 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level. You can even see people who have been members of the Church of Global Warming referencing this since 2007. (here, here, here… it goes on, just do as Rosie O’Donnell says and “google it”)
The Netherlands however is a bit miffed, you see because only 26% of their land is below sea level. Or 29% more than the IPCC said.
According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.
The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.
IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said.
“They should have been clearer,” Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.
My favorite line in this article shows the contempt still for those who dare to question these people:
Glaciologists have discredited the Himalaya claim, which is being withdrawn, and the controversy has given fresh ammunition to climate skeptics.
Mother fracking seriously?? “given fresh ammunition to climate skeptics”? No one else is questioning this crap but the “Skeptics”?
Oh yea, that’s right. That’s why they call it faith.
No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.
You have the IPCC here referencing “peer-reviewed” stuff that referenced the World Wildlife Fund. Tell me… Isn’t a scientific journal referencing an Environmentalist group report be akin to the kind of bias they yelp about if a scientific journals were to reference a company like, oh… Exxon?
Science is supposed to be objective. So what the crap would you call a peer-reviewed report that references the WWF that is then passed along as acceptable material to the IPCC?
Climate “Science” is based on anecdotal evidence
Jan 31st
There has been a lot of press lately about the Climate Change fraud going on, but this one puts a lot of their “Science” into perspective.
From Telegraph.co.uk:
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
So, let me get this straight… The entire world’s economic system and the freedom of all people on Earth is threatened because some ice climbers were chatting and some geography student quoted them in a school report?
Well, while we’re taking school reports as expert evidence for policy change, I would like to quote my nephew:
I would ROFLMAO if I wasn’t all like WTF.
Danny Glover: Haiti=Responce for Failed Copenhagen
Jan 18th
There has been a lot of press in the news with someone religious saying something very stupid regarding the Haiti earthquake. What was said involved a religious deity causing the events in Haiti and could have been stopped if people just acted differently.
And it’s not just Pat Roberts, though he is the one getting all the press.
While I won’t disagree that what he said was stupid, I find it disturbing how much attention he is getting while a member of the Church of Global Warming said practically the same thing.
From Danny Glover:
This is a great moment for another type of internationalism, you know. And I hope we seize this particular moment. Because the threat that happened to Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. They’re all in peril because of global warming, they’re all in peril because of climate change and all of this. And we need to find…When we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens. You know what I’m saying? But we have to act now.
Both Glover and Roberts comments are nearly identical.
In one case, (Pat Roberts) the event in Haiti was caused by a deal signed with the devil to overthrow the French…
In the other case (Danny Glover) event in Haiti was caused because we didn’t sign a deal with the Greenies (in Copenhagen) for the Earth.
I submit that at more of a core, you have a few stupid people saying stupid things about what caused an earthquake. Religion in either case has these people speaking out of their butts. However what is most fascinating is how much Pat Robertson is being covered over Danny Glover for comments about the same thing (A religious cause of an earthquake in Haiti).
When you search their names the results in Google News (at the time of this posting) are quite different.
Pat Robertson Haiti: 2,539
Danny Glover Haiti: 239
It is quite interesting how one religion is fashionable to hate, while the other is simply fashionable. It should be noted too that Glover isn’t just talking about our failure to act in Copenhagen being simply in the relm of Global Warming, but his comments were pretty clearly Big Government… but this whole Global Warming thing on its own is pretty Big Government.
Links for Today
Jan 11th
What is it that global warming skeptics are ‘denying?’
Climategate: You should be steamed
Global warming put on hold for a few decades
Cold stuns Floridians, causes deaths elsewhere
14th coldest december in 115 years
Worst Freeze In Over 20 Years In Florida Tonight
Year off to coldest start since 1940
The mini ice age starts here
Big freeze could signal global warming ‘pause’
Farm Bureau Fires Back Against Climate Bill’s ‘Power Grab’
Record Heat is Proof of Global Warming, Record Cold Should be Ignored
Jan 7th
It is not hard to find members of the Church clamoring all over themselves with their proof of global warming by pointing out record heat. A simple Google search will give you all the pages you want for this (despite many of them ignoring the last 10 years of cooling).
But during a record cold spell, in times like this, one must be reminded by the true believers that just because heat is a sign of global warming, that doesn’t mean cold is the opposite: A sign against.
A couple of examples for you:
Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida’s orange groves and beaches.
Whatever happened to global warming?
Such weather doesn’t seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming at all — it’s just a blip in the long-term heating trend.
The brutal cold snap that has put much of the Northern Hemisphere on ice this week doesn’t disprove global warming or mean we’re off the hook for greenhouse emissions.
…
No sane climate scientist would say that global warming means never having another severe cold snap. What it does mean is a gradual shifting of the odds away from record-breaking cold days and toward record-breaking hot ones.
Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather’s natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.
Surely, this means that all of this talk — or at least some of it — about global warming is hype.
No, it doesn’t.
But he said it was wrong to focus on single events – whether they were cold snaps or heat waves – which were the product of natural variability.
Instead they should look at the underlying, longer term trends for the climate which were more ”robust” evidence of the changes which are happening.
They go on and on. The dilemma here is they are all saying the same thing:
Just because we’re in a cold snap, doesn’t mean we should see that as a sign of anything. Instead we should look at the bigger picture.
Much like the Wizard of Oz, here they say one thing, but behind the curtain, something else entirely is going on.
Now, again, the Interweb is a fantastic source of information. Anyone can Google and disprove what their saying now in regards to not paying attention to a single weather event. They have all argued at one point or another that every time it gets hot for a day, that warmth is proof positive of climate change. Even watching the media reflects this, as television is bombarded every summer with Global Warming this, Climate Change that every time the mercury rises even for a short event.
Yet now that big-time cold is happening, and not just for a day or an isolated event, they yelp to ignore the facts behind the curtain.
As one commentator (by the name of board_member) wrote on the Independent article:
Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute, it seems like only yesterday (maybe 2 weeks ago), all you climate warm-mongers were screaming and shouting, touting VERY localized observations of warming trends to reinforce your claims of the devastating effects of anthropogenic global warming. Now that the same observations don’t support that claim, you’re saying that the localized observations are meaningless? What gives?? Which is it??
You’re not trying to sell us something, are you? Surely not!
You see, I have two problems with the whole “Let’s look at long-term trends” thing that they are spouting now.
They weren’t saying it in the summer, or when they wanted to point out localized observations of warming.
Even if we go back a thousand years, we still aren’t looking “long-term trends” which go back millions of years.
The earth has been warming/cooling with and without humans here. We are even at a low point when it comes to the earth’s temperature, as the average global temperature is somewhere around 6-8 degrease census warmer then the earth is now, but all of this history and “long-term trends” is ignored for 1000 year hockey stick graphs to pick and choose the reference points. I’m sorry, but 1000 years of history on the Earth (which even ignores the medieval warm period) is like me judging climate trends for the next year based off of the last fifteen seconds.
In the case of measuring history and pointing fingers, size matters, and no one wants to show the temperature record going back millions of years because it completely blows away the entire notion of human caused global warming. Sorry guys, but my graph is bigger.
New Page Layout and New Ways to Follow the CoGW
Jan 7th
We’ve undergone a massave page upgrade to Wordpress and can now be followed via your favorite social networking sites Twitter and Facebook as well as now having an RSS feed!
We have also added the capability to recieve notices when a post you have commented on is responded to allong with a faster system and easier to follow layout.
Enjoy!
The Church of Global Warming at Copenhagen
Dec 30th
It is a lie that the United Nations wants to maintain religious neutrality at COP-15. No, Global Warming is the established religion at this international event.
(Reprinted from Here with permission)
This was made especially clear when, days before the event’s commencement, the Denmark Foreign Ministry rejected a donated delivery of Christmas fir trees. “We have to remember that this is a U.N. conference and, as the [Bella] center then becomes U.N. territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the U.N. wishes to maintain neutrality,” explained Ministry official Svend Olling.
Religious objectivity, however, is impossible at a conference explicitly engaged in blind adherence to an unproven premise – a faith in the veracity of global warming. For though the science is not settled, participants have convened to devise strategies for what they believe will be the world’s environmental salvation, the capping of carbon dioxide emissions.
Global Warming devotees’ religious fervor commands action, even if their deliverance comes at the expense of economic devastation. American disciples such as Al Gore and President Barack Obama are more than willing to sacrifice economic stability at the altar of Global Warming.
The faith dictates absolute advocacy for draconian carbon dioxide regulations such as the cap-and-trade scheme detailed in the House-passed “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.” To Warming enthusiasts, the $9.4 trillion reduction in aggregate GDP, increase in annual unemployment by 2.5 million jobs, and increase in inflation-adjusted electricity prices by 90 percent, gasoline prices by 58 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 55 percent, all estimated to occur within the first 24 years under such a cap and trade scheme, are merely an afterthought.
Though economists have highlighted the dire financial implications of energy restriction ad nauseam and questions remain about the actual science behind the Global Warming Theory, adherents are steadfast in their belief. Ironically, it seems that most of these Warmers – many of whom are often quick to proclaim creationists as backward – stick to their faith with the unbending will of a St. Paul.
Even in the wake of Climategate and new peer-reviewed studies (which give lie to the notion that apocalyptic climate forecasts are supported by consensus) by such renowned scientists as Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Dr. Stephen E. Schwartz, MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, and the University of Auckland’s Dr. Chris de Freitas, Warming adherents remain loyally convinced that man’s evil energy usage is destroying Mother Earth.
Faith is belief without verifiable evidence. The unquestioned adherence to the theory of Global Warming bears all the markings of what traditionally would be recognized as a religion. Complete with sin (the emitting of carbon dioxide), scriptures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports), commandments (drive a Prius, use Compact Florescent Light bulbs, do not eat meat, etc.), indulgences (carbon offsets), proselytism and prophets (Al Gore), priests (scientists), prophecy and apocalypse (floods, hurricanes, dead polar bears), infidels (Warming skeptics), and salvation (the halting of carbon-emitting industrial progress), the religion of Global Warming fits the mold.
Great Britain has already recognized belief in anthropogenic Global Warming as a religion. In November, in a landmark case brought before the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal, the court found that under the “2003 Religion and Belief Regulations,” “belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives” qualified for the same employment discrimination protections as a traditional religion.
Though we have yet to see Al Gore or James Hansen walk on water, COP-15 is far from religiously-neutral. Instead, participants are expected to adhere to their one true faith: Global Warming.
Consequently, it makes sense that Christmas trees are welcome at the Church of Global Warming. When was the last time you saw a menorah in a Cathedral?
Gore’s Religion Makes Him a Killing
Nov 3rd
Ahh, lobbying and advocacy. It’s bad no matter who is profiting off of it, right? Apparently not if your “Green”.
From the New York Times:
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.
Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
The article goes on and on (it’s quite long) with Gore defending himself as simply advocating for a greener future and all that, but then goes a little beyond the limits of “news” to help decide for us:
Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds that try to identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy.
….
Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.
….
Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of legislation to address climate change and to revamp the nation’s energy policies.
….
He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April to support an energy and climate change bill that was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries.
….
Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.
I didn’t see any quotes in that article there so it’s pretty clear who’s mouth its coming from: The writer.
Gore defended his huge pocketbook by having an interview this morning on MSNBC (A company owned by GE, who spends BILLIONS a year lobbying for green everything) who I’m sure are fair and balanced on this issue.
MSNBC Asks:”Is there a conflict of interest, or even an appearance of a conflict of interest?”
Gore:”Well, No. Of course I invest according to my beliefs and values, and I encourage everybody to do the same thing.”I put my money where my mouth is,”
Much like there is no conflict of interest in Big Oil and their push for relaxed regulation in regards to drilling right?
The New York Times gave him an opportunity also to pipe in on his own behalf.
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”
No, Mr. Gore, there is nothing wrong with being active in business in this country. There is however something very wrong with being active in a business while at the same time using a heavy handed political arm to sway the Government to force people into spending money into your business (Cap and Trade anyone).
In fact, that is the type of thing people have been put into jail for. Also, I am willing to bet that Al Gore wouldn’t hold the same separation between investing and advocacy to the Oil industry, Nuclear industry, or Coal industry that he holds to himself.
But I’m sure all those who criticize any of those evil energy lobbying would be the first to criticize Al Gore’s “activism” with me.
Right guys?
Huh. They have been oddly silent on this for some time.
Early Snow Sets Records Around the USA
Oct 7th
Throughout the USA, early snowfall is setting records.
The Blaine County School District in Idaho has set the earliest snow day in history this week, when a record heavy fall snowstorm hit them hard enough to keep the kiddies from their science teachers for a day.
From KTVB Idaho 7 News:
“We got dumped on last night, you can see that by looking around here. We weren’t quite ready for it. It did cause us some issues in the school district,” Lonnie Barber, Blaine County Superintendent.
Not just the school district, but throughout the county. At least 3,500 Idaho Power customers in the Wood River Valley were without electricty today. Utility officials blame heavy wet snow for knocking out power in Bellevue and Hailey. Outages were also reported in Fairfield and Carey.
KTVB goes on to report how general chaos ensued due to the snow breaking branches of trees not yet having time to shed their leaves, and disrupting power as a result.
In Colorado, the Loveland Basin ski resort is enjoying their earliest opening in the Arapahoe Basin’s 64 year history. The snow is manufactured here, but the fact that the climate is cold enough to allow them to invest in eighteen inches of manufactured snow to stick around is a big deal.
From the Denver Post:
“We took advantage of the cold temperatures and got an early start making snow this year,” said Eric Johnstone, snowmaking and trail maintenance manager. “Now we can move some equipment to other trails and try to open more terrain as quickly as possible.”
This occurrence is even happening as far south as Las Vegas.
The 2009-2010 season at the Las Vegas Ski & Snowboard Resort is underway, the earliest the resort has ever been open.
Unseasonably cold nighttime temperatures and aggressive snowmaking efforts have produced snow on Chair Three, Rabbit Peak, the only lift and trail scheduled to open.
And while members of the Church of Global Warming like the folks over at RealClimate.org continue to say ” the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade” they still can’t show us who exactly predicted fifteen years ago that the temps would go down for ten years.
Last I checked, Al Gore’s graphics and RealCliamte.org’s dogma never accounted for ten years of cold climate we are seeing now (which coincidently goes along with the solar cycle lull that we are in).
But, if you are wrong ten years from now, why not just deny your wrongness in hopes for more government funding for your phony science? Congressman Barney Frank can vouch know how well that works.
Global Warming Monster Confirmed: Senator Can “feel global warming when I fly”
Aug 13th
The end is near. Well, even if its not, many are certain that they can ‘feel’ the end of the world (due, no doubt, to human caused global warming) in their bones.
Despite Michigan polling that Global Warming isn’t even in the public’s top-ten list of problems, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow says she can feel it in her bones:
“Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry — at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”
Ah huh. I don’t feel anything, but the scent of bullshit is all around this issue.
| User Comments |
|
Comment by maggie on 2009-12-09 12:35:55 this is effing hysterical. just found this site. love it. |
![Recommend [cogw]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/logo-recommend-me-badge.png){kind=icon}
