Climate scientist S. Fred Singer, explaining why global warming is a hoax:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFfkwmg1K4




Model Atmospheric Temperatures vs. Observed Atmospheric Temperatures



_________________________________________________

globalwarming.org

Feb 16, 2009

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.



Take the Green Test on the last page. __________________________________________________


September 30, 2010

Climate Ministers Seek Breakthrough
by John Heilprin, The Associated Press

Cancun, Mexico will host the annual U.N. climate conference Nov. 29 - Dec 10. The talks are meant to produce a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, whose relatively modest emission reductions expire in 2012.

The U.S. is the only industrial nation not to have ratified the Kyoto pact.

_____________________

These environmental hypocrites fly around the world, day in and day out, ordering everyone else to reduce carbon emissions. Here is a link to scores if not hundreds of their upcoming travel diaries:

http://www.conferencealerts.com/environment.htm

Why don't they videoconference? And practice what they preach? (Crickets chirping)

------------------------------- DEC 31, 2009

Climategate - 30 Years in the Making

An incredible compendium of fraud, deceit, spin, and lies propagated by those who would control your lives solely for their own selfish reasons of getting more research monies to "prove" what they have long maintained they have already proven:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf


-------------------------------------------------
Eco-Marxist Socialist Demonstration at Copenhagen




“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”. - Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

------------------------------------------





"There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years." - Al Gore at the Copenhagen Hypocrisy Conference, where 40,500 tons of carbon dioxide were created as thousands arrived from all over the globe, many in private jets, and many more in limousines, about 1,200 limousines to be far more precise than Al Gore ever was.


As you can imagine, Gore's assertion made headlines all over the world this morning and is being used by the-sky-is-falling crowd to demand another major take-over of world economies by government. There is only one little detail that Gore has to clear up: Dr. Maslowski has made no such claim. He told the few reporters who actually called him that, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

================
"THE GREEN PRINCE" as Prince Charles is called in Great Britain



Yes, you little people, even though the average Brit has an annual carbon footprint of 11 tons, The Green Prince's carbon footprint is 2,601 tons. So what has this AlGorian hypocrite to say to you?

“Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned. … And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the '‘age of convenience’ was over.”

He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace.

Meanwhile Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who heads the International Panel on Climate Change and has demanded that "hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying," flew 443,226 miles on "IPCC business" in the year and a half before the Copenhagen summit. (Source, Mark Steyn)

=======================

Al Gore on Conan O'Brien Show, November 12, 2009

"People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..."


[In fact, the core of the earth ("interior" is such an imprecise, amateurish term) is several thousand degrees Celsius. Being off by a factor of one thousand-fold is nothing new for Al Gore.]

GLOBAL WARMING "SCIENCE" ALL A SCAM

www.newyorktimes.com November 20, 2009

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.”

[NOTE: When the Al Gore sycophants lie and spin, it shows "the integrity of scientists.] Who would have guessed science works in such wondrous ways.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

[NOTE: How's that for the way these "scientists" spin lies and misrepresentations and bias? Lying and spinning is just not "nice," that's all. Nothing more.]


The following link is a 43 page PDF file of Climategate, the greatest, most expensive scientific hoax of the twenty-first century.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf



We're going to freeze. No, wait, we're going to fry. Yeah, that's it, we're going to fry.

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.

"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - Time Magazine, June 24, 1974


"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing: A Maj, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - Time Magazine, June or Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable" - New York Times Article, May 21, 1975

In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” said Nigel Calder, a former editor of “New Scientist.”


A major new study published in the American Geophysical Union's official publication, the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that most warming isn't man-made.

The party line is that man-made "greenhouse gas" emissions are clearly the greatest contributor to warming, with the major culprit being carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that heat and cool our homes and power our vehicles.

But that assumption appears false. "We have shown that internal global-climate-system variability accounts for at least 80 percent of the observed global-climate variation over the past half-century," says study co-author Christopher de Freitas.

De Freitas, a climatologist at New Zealand's Auckland University and former editor of the prestigious international journal Climate Research, performed the study with his colleagues Robert Carter (an environmental scientist at two Australian universities) and John Mc- Lean (a climate consultant in Victoria, Australia). They found that the major cause of increased global surface temperatures since 1950 are El Niño and La Niña -- the abnormal Pacific surface-water heating and cooling phenomena.

Even the remaining 20 percent of observed warming isn't necessarily related to greenhouse-gas emissions, the researchers say. They point to other natural conditions, such as an increase in solar radiation that's part of the sun's normal cycle, called solar variation.

The major media ignored the study, as they do virtually all research that doesn't fit their preconceptions. Yet it "is just one of several papers over the past six years that have shown that observed [increased] temperatures can be accounted for by natural phenomena" notes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen (who has been critical of both global-warming skeptics and alarmists over the years).

His own work shows that at most "about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man."
============================================

EFFECT OF CARBON DIOXIDE ON ATMOSPHERE ONLY 1/6th OF WHAT U.N. SAYS


LORD MONCKTON: Aha. There is one obstacle that they are going to face this they go down that route and they know it. It's this: That we now know for certain by measurement that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature globally is less than 1/6th of what the UN says it is. This was a paper published just last month by the gallant professor Richard Lindzen of MIT who I'm sure you've heard of. He's the Alfred P. Sloan professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences.


He is a lovely man and he is the guy who really understands what's happening in the atmosphere. He has done a dazzlingly simple but dazzlingly careful measurement that was taken in 20 years, he's been accumulating the data so that he could do it. And he's just published the result. The amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space is supposed to reduce enormously as the temperature warms down here. That's the official theory because of all the greenhouse gases getting in the way. What is actually happening is that nearly all of it is getting out into space just as before. So the warming effect of CO2 over the whole of the next 100 years is going to be well below 2 Fahrenheit degrees, just negligible, it might even be 1 Fahrenheit degrees. And now that that is known by measurement, all of the UN's report on which this treaty is based are out of date, and the Supreme Court's own judgment in Massachusetts V. EPA where they said CO2 was a pollutant because it might cause warming are now also out of date. Because the facts have changed, and it's now been a measured result. There's no argument with it. Nobody's dared to argue with this paper.