I Love Saying ‘I Told You So’

I’m not a Colbert fan.  Usually I avoid whatever he is saying due to the fact that he is a left-wing asshat.  But even broken clock is right twice a day.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
An Energy-Independent Future

This video helps me do to things:

  1. Say “I Told You So”
  2. Use the same source against those who love it most

In here, Johnny Boy basically says something I’ve been saying here for over five years. 

Alternatives are great.  They are.  The free market makes them all the time.  A person sees a profit (oooh, so evil) to be made because of a need, and goes at it with all they’ve got.  

However, this “Let’s get off of oil” because “They are inventing new technologies” thing is simply crap.  You don’t stop eating just because there is talk of an alternative to food.

Every time you hear someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about bring up our dependence on oil as something we need to break, they usually cite vague ’alternatives’ or ‘new technologies’.  They have been doing so for the last 30 years.  Let’s see them last through a 30 year hunger strike waiting for that new alternative technology for food.

But as you know, if we simply reduce our dependence on oil without government intervention, then environMental lobbyist groups won’t be able to rape us for money.

Part of the reason these “new technologies” are nowhere to be found in a form that will do any good is blindingly obvious.  What do all of these “Fixes” have in common?  Government.

So, to sum up this rant:  I Told You So.  I said many times that just because there are pipe dreams for “new technologies” doesn’t mean we should get off of oil right now.

Patrick Moore

Greenpeace Founder Explains Why He Left

2 years old but still very much worth a read.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Patrick Moore

Why I Left Greenpeace

April 22, 2008; Page A23

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, “If DINP is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP.”

The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

Videos of the Week

The first here is from people in the UK who want to get their beliefs protected in their workplace like religion are.


Well, look at it this way.  If the environMentalists limit themselves to one child, their numbers should go down.

Video 2 is from Youtuber jessewoodrow questioning if it is TREASON on the people of the U.S.A. to go agasint what we want: No World Cliamte Treaty.


My favorite part is starts at 7:30.  Listen to the responce to the reporter’s question.  The arrogance is amazing.

Team of Scientists Counter U.S. Gov’t Report: ‘Global warming alarm will prove false’ — Climate fears based on faulty forecasting procedures’

[Reprinted with permission from Climate Depot]

Global Warming Alarm Based on Faulty Forecasting Procedures:

Comments on the United States Department of State’s U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.

May 4, 2010

Submitted by:

 J. Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingprinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting, and he has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on forecasting. (Armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu)

Kesten C. Green of the International Graduate School of Business at the University of South Australia is a Director of the International Institute of Forecasters and is co-director with Scott Armstrong of the Forecasting Principles public service Internet site (ForPrin.com). He has been responsible for the development of two forecasting methods that provide forecasts that are substantially more accurate than commonly used methods. (Kesten.Green@unisa.edu.au)

Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy. He has 20 years of active researching and publishing in the area of climate change and all views expressed are strictly his own. (vanlien@earthlink.net) 


Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department’s Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation. As a consequence, alarming forecasts of global warming are merely the opinions of some scientists and, for a situation as complicated and poorly understood as global climate, such opinions are unlikely to be as accurate as forecasts that global temperatures will remain much the same as they have been over recent years. Using proper forecasting procedures we predict that the global warming alarm will prove false and that government actions in response to the alarm will be shown to have been harmful.

Whether climate will change over the 21st Century, by how much, in what direction, to what effect, and what if anything people could and should do about any changes are all forecasting problems. Given that policy makers currently do not have access to scientific forecasts for any of these, the policies that have been proposed with the avowed purpose of reducing dangerous manmade global warming—such as are described in CAR 2010 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7—are likely to cause serious and unnecessary harm.

In this comment on CAR 2010, we summarize findings from our research on forecasting climate. Most of our findings have been published in the peer-reviewed literature and all have been presented at scientific meetings. They are easily accessible on the Internet and we provide links to them.

1. There are no scientific forecasts to support claims that there will be dangerous global warming over the 21st Century.

a) Faulty selection of forecasting methods

Based on scientific research on forecasting, the most appropriate method for forecasting climate over the 21st Century would be a naïve no-trend extrapolation. Due to the substantial uncertainty about climate, it is not possible to forecast even the direction of change and one should not, therefore, forecast changes. As with many conclusions from scientific research on forecasting, this conclusion derives from a finding that is not intuitive: in complex situations with high uncertainty, one should use methods that are conservative and simple (Armstrong 1985; Armstrong 2001).

While much has been made of the climate models used to support forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming, these were used in effect only as tools to present forecasts. The actual forecasts were made by unaided judgment; that is, by judgment unaided by forecasting principles. A substantial body of research has shown that unaided judgment cannot provide useful forecasts in complex situations with high uncertainty (Armstrong 1980; Tetlock 2005), such as is the case with climate.

In other words, if one were to recruit the cleverest climate scientists in the world and give them access to all of the available facts about climate, and ensured that all facts were true and all data were valid and accurate, the experts could do no better at forecasting climate than people with only minimal expertise. And their forecasts would even be less accurate than those from a simple heuristic. This finding is astonishing to those who are not familiar with the eight decades of evidence in the peer-reviewed research literature, and nearly all who learn of it believe that while the finding might apply to others, it does not apply to them.

b) Errors in implementation of forecasting methods


The forecasting procedures described in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting. For example, the methods and data were neither fully disclosed nor were they easy for independent researcher to access, no reasonable alternative forecasting methods were assessed, and prediction intervals were not assessed objectively (see “Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts”).

Those who were responsible for making the forecasts had no training or experience in the proper use of scientific forecasting methods. Furthermore, we were unable to find any indication that they made an effort to look for evidence from scientific research on forecasting. It is perhaps not surprising then that their implementation of their forecasting method was inappropriate.

c) Failure in validation testing

The forecasting procedures used by global warming alarmists were not validated for the situation. To address this oversight, we conducted an ex ante forecasting simulation of the IPCC forecasts (from the organization’s 1992 report) of a .03°C per year increase in global average temperature.

We used the period from 1850 through 2007, a period of industrialization and exponential growth in human emissions of carbon dioxide. In a head-to-head competition involving 10,750 forecasts, the forecast errors from the IPCC model were more than 7 times larger than the errors from a model more appropriate to the situation, the aforementioned naïve extrapolation. More importantly, the errors were 12.6 times larger for the long-term (91 to 100-year forecast horizons). (See “Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making.”)

2. There are no scientific forecasts to support the actions advocated by global warming alarmists.

a) Our findings apply not only to the alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming, but also to the unsupported claims that various actions (e.g., “buying local,” carbon taxes, subsidies for alternative sources of energy) would be beneficial

To assess actions properly, one would need to forecast all the costs and benefits. For example, we examined the procedures used to support the claim that polar bears are in danger of extinction and should therefore be listed as an endangered species. The claim was made in the face of evidence that the polar bear population has been growing in recent decades. (See “Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit.”) As with the IPCC’s climate forecasts, we found faulty forecasting procedures. Indeed, only 15% of relevant forecasting principles were properly applied. An example of a faulty procedure is the construction of 45-, 75-, and 100-year forecasts based on an analysis that used only 5 years (2001-2005) of calibration data on polar bears and ice.

We judged that the polar bear population forecasting process to have been affected by political biases. See also Dr. Armstrong’s testimony on this issue to a U.S. Senate Committee in January 2008.

b) A failure to consider the costs and benefits of reasonable alternatives

For responsible and rational policy making, it is necessary to obtain forecasts for a set of alternative decisions. One alternative would be to take no action, and another would be to monitor the situation until there is scientific evidence on actions that would lead to beneficial outcomes. On this matter, basic economic rationality in the form of cost/benefit analysis aligns with basic science: reasonable alternative hypotheses must be tested in order to have a good chance of identifying the truth.

3. A political argument, the “precautionary principle,” has been used to block a scientific approach to forecasting climate and making decisions.

The purpose of scientific forecasting is to reduce uncertainty in order to facilitate wise decisions. The so-called “precautionary principle” claims that uncertainty is a reason to make dramatic changes. It has the effect of marginalizing rational scientific study. Rejection of the rational scientific approach to decision making was mocked in George Orwell’s 1984, in one of the three slogans displayed on the Ministry of Truth building, “Ignorance is strength.” (Our essay “Uncertainty, the precautionary principle, and climate change” describes the anti-scientific nature of the “precautionary principle.”)

In the case of global climate change over policy-relevant time scales, there is little uncertainty. Proper scientific forecasts provide extremely accurate forecasts. Climate varies, but our validation study showed that simply extrapolating last year’s global mean temperature resulted in a mean absolute error of only 0.24°C for fifty-year ahead forecasts. It is difficult to imagine how policy makers would benefit if this error were reduced further, even to 0.0°C.

4. Using a new, but validated forecasting procedure known as structured analogies, we forecast that the global warming movement will be shown to have raised a false alarm and to have been responsible for precipitating decisions that caused long-term harm to most people.

We are conducting an on-going study to examine earlier forecasts of manmade disasters such as the global cooling movement in the 1970s, and the environmental movement’s campaign to ban DDT. We have been actively seeking such analogous situations, especially from the people responsible for promulgating alarming forecasts of manmade global warming, to see if there have been any widely accepted forecasts of manmade disasters that proved to be accurate or where the forecasted disaster was successfully prevented by government actions.

In all, we have identified 72 analogous situations, and we judge 26 of them to be relevant. Based on an analysis of these 26 similar alarms with known outcomes, we found that none were based on forecasts derived from scientific forecasting procedures, and all were false alarms. Government actions were sought in 96% of the cases and, in the 92% of cases where government action was taken, the actions caused harm in 87%. (“Effects and outcomes of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method”).

We are providing full disclosure and inviting inputs at publicpolicyforecasting.com. A page of the site devoted to our Global Warming Analogies Project provides a list of the 26 analogies and links to descriptions of some of them. We also seek evidence that might lead us to revise our analyses. We will provide an update of the project at the 4th International Conference on Climate Change on May 18, 2010.

Based on our structured analogies study, we forecast that the global warming movement will be found to have been raising false alarms, and that the negative effects of the movement will continue to be felt for many years.  



Those who make alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming have appealed to the “precautionary principle” in order to justify their calls for drastic actions. The latter appeal is made in response to uncertainty about how and why climate changes. We have shown that the alarming climate forecasts are not based on scientific procedures. Calls for drastic action are neither logical nor responsible.

Policy-makers should halt and reverse actions to try to change the climate. There is no scientific justification for making energy more expensive and reducing economic efficiency. If policymakers fail to reverse their anti-energy policies, we forecast that people will suffer further harm from unnecessarily expensive energy as well as from unintended consequences of climate change policies.


Armstrong, J. S. (1978; 1985), Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978; 2nd Edition, 1985.

Armstrong, J. S. (1980), “The Seer-Sucker Theory: The Value of Experts in Forecasting,” Technology Review, 83 (June/July), 18-24.

Armstrong, J. S., Green, K.C., & Soon, W. (2008), “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” Interfaces, 38, No. 5, 382–405. [Includes commentary and response]

Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007), “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts,” Energy and Environment, 18, No. 7+8, 995-1019.

Green, K. C. & Armstrong J. S. (2010), “Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method,” Working Paper.

Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. S. & Soon W. (2009), “Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making,” International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 826-832.

Tetlock, P. E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


Freedom of Choice doesn’t count unless it’s abortion

Okay, so maybe the headline is a little eye-catching, especially for a global warming website.  I don’t like to get into many political arguments outside of this topic because honestly I love to win arguments, and it’s so easy against the members of the Church.  But I want to use the whole abortion example while pointing out a bit of news that hit this weekend.

In the world of eco-regulation, my Automotive Freedom of Choice feels opressed as of late.  Oddly enough, the same folks who claim “Choice” is a right are in the same political segment that wants to deny you your “Choice” at every turn.

From Times Online.co.uk

Barack Obama aims to drive gas guzzlers off the road with greener laws For decades they have thundered along America’s highways and choked up parking lots, a symbol of extravagance unchallenged by politicians, emissions standards or common sense.

Ok wait, seriously, “unchallenged by… common sense”?  we can all see where this article is going.  This is probably in the editorial section right?   Nope.

They are the four-wheel-drive behemoths known to the US Government as “light trucks” and to consumers as SUVs (sport utility vehicles) — but their easy ride as the world’s most conspicuous mobile polluters ended this week.

Wow, they can’t even hide their contempt.

In a coup that achieves something President Clinton promised but never delivered, President Obama has forced the big three US carmakers, and their unions, to accept tough mileage rules for cars and SUVs. The rules will cut emissions from vehicles by more than a third over the next four years.

This here is where we get into the crux of my argument.  The government regulating mileage rules for vehicles.  You know how there’s this whole push now for vehicles that get better mileage?  Yea, that’s all you.  The consumer.  When gas hit the high in 2008, people wanted vehicles that got better mileage.  (I personally used that time to go out and buy something that got less mileage, my suburban.  The deals were just too good to resist.)  Amazingly the people who make stuff, listen to the people who buy the stuff.

Capitalism (I know, something the church members typically despise with a passion) keeps itself in check because unlike the government, if we decide something is not cool, it fails and is replaced with something better.

Where does this whole abortion thing come into play?  Let me get to that.

From 2016, new cars and SUVs will have to deliver an average of 35.5 miles per gallon (42.6 miles per British gallon), comparable for the first time with European and Japanese requirements.

Now, all of the members of the Church of Global Warming that I communicate with are all into Pro-choiceness.  It just seems to be the way that segment of the political spectrum blends.  (I won’t get into my contempt for the term “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice” as I don’t think it’s about life or choice… we all want life and choice.  The issue is whether or not you think people should be able to have abortions.)

The next time you have a eco-conversation with someone, ask them their opinion on the government regulating the hell out of automobiles to force the manufactures into making what the government tells them to make (The government, because remember, if we choose, it would be with our money, not a political party), ask them what they think of the idea of letting the people choose and having no government regulation.

The answer you are likely to get will range but will most likely include bits of nonsense like:

  • People are not smart enough to make the right choice
  • Look at all the SUVs sold now, that’s just wrong
  • If we don’t force better mileage on people, it will never happen

So then what about Abortion?  Exactly.  How can anyone be into “Freedom of Choice” but yet in the same conversation, be against your Automotive Freedom of Choice.

To take it a step further, the end-all-be-all last resort for all CoGW members is always been “Well, even if we’re not sure, shouldn’t we take steps to keep it from happening just in case?”  or “Better safe than sorry.”
Then try turning that around on the whole abortion thing.  If we can neither confirm nor deny that what makes a person a person is or is not there from the start of the human life cycle, they why not be “better safe than sorry”?

They will undoubtedly spout something about how the woman’s right to choose, bla bla bla.  Well, I am tired of my Automotive Freedom of Choice being compromised because someone things I shouldn’t be driving what I enjoy to drive.  Who the hell are you to tell the people that make my products that they have to make something different?  Can you imagine if the government started regulating organic food to the level that they regulate automobiles?  That would never stand.

But somehow, this does.  No, my golden rule is still as follows:  Smaller Government > Larger Government.  And in the case of automotive regulation, all they are doing is making the cars/trucks/SUVs more expensive at the cost of our Automotive Freedom of Choice.

saul alinsky

“Respected” Scientists: Humans are too stupid to stop climate change

In line with what James Cameron said about “you have your head up your ass” when it comes to climate change, British scientist James Lovelock thinks you are too stupid to solve the problem of climate change.  From the Guardian.co.uk:

I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.

Do you like that?  You are not as evolved as you need to be to deal with this… you are not as evolved as him or James Cameron obviously because they see it and you do not.  How intellectually elite of them.

Al Gore

I think it’s funny how this article is worded.  Too stupid to solve the problem of climate change?  I submit that many are not so stupid as to be pulled into Cameron and Lovelock’s religion.  If they want the support of someone like me, all the must logically explain how the Holocene climatic optimum, Roman climate optimum, and medieval warm periods were the fault of humans.

This whole thing boils down to the Saul Alinsky approach of simply ignoring those who do not agree with you because your argument does not hold up.

At one point, I was doing a Google search to learn more about the Holocene and Roman climate optimums, and I had stumbled across a Yahoo Answers question that reminded me of this same tactic.  In the Yahoo Answers question (in which the author asks what the roman climate optimum is, but obviously already has their mind made up that it means nothing) the author refuses to accept any information from those branded a “Skeptic”.

So, if Everyone who dares to say anything contrary about man causing global warming, then the Church brands them a skeptic (or a modern day heretic) and completely ignores what they have to say.  Whilst the “Skeptics” actually come to their conclusions using data from everywhere (generally, there are always examples of bias) the members of the Church of Global Warming pride themselves in ignoring data.

This is lock step in line with James Lovelock’s comment and something Saul Alinsky would be proud of.

saul alinsky

Rules for Radicals, Rule number 5:

Ridicule, especially against organizational leaders, is a potent weapon. There’s no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force concessions.

Too stupid to solve the problem of climate change?  No.  We are too smart to fall for your tactics, and too open minded to limit our information to only the church approved dogma.

Links for Today

Texas takes the EPA to court over “Clean Air Act”
Companies Begin to Pull Out of Climate Change Partnership
Supreme Court decision “blocks” global warming efforts

New Page Layout and New Ways to Follow the CoGW

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.


The Church of Global Warming at Copenhagen

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?

Written by Caroline May, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at anonymouslyinfo@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Early Snow Sets Records Around the USA

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.

Some random people from the Internet.

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.

20078 Vegas Snow

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.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes