Ex Veep Gore touts Myanmar tragedy to pimp global warming agenda

Andrew Bolt at Australia's Herald Sun as done a magnificent job examining the tragedy of Myanmar's unthinkable mass murder by Mother Nature. I'm not sure I can add anything of value to his article, Burma Killed by Tyranny". . He has already stated it in direct, non-PC terms.

What I can do is summarize. But I suggest an entire read is in order.

On Gore, morbidly promoting his pet cause.

ThE vultures are circling over Burma's dead. Hey, isn't that fat one Al Gore?

Sure is. And - flap, flap, plop - there he lands, the first to go picking over carcasses for scraps to feed his great global warming scare campaign.

What the world should be learning from this terrible loss of at least 60,000 people in the cyclone that hit Burma last week is that tyrannies kill more surely than any freak of weather.

But Al Gore, who won a Nobel "Peace" Prize for terrifying people with his error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth, wants you to blame instead his pet bogeyman. Tremble, sinners, before the wrath of a hot planet!

In an interview on America's NPR on Tuesday, Gore claimed Cyclone Nargis was actually part of a pattern.

Gore then goes on to cite recent storms in Bangladesh and China. Storms that were actually less intensive than many that hit decades ago when the world's gas emissions were nary a glint in Momma Gore's eye. Bolt does well, pointing out the research that debunks the nonsense the frequency and intensity of storms is not necessarily tied to the world's climate changes. There is no consensus among scientists of such nonsense. Gore, however, doesn't skip a beat for truth.

The *real* culprit:

But what's worse this time is that Gore's blundering attempts to blame global warming for Burma's agony distracts attention from the real causes of this catastrophe - despicable causes we may at least hope to do something about.

If Cyclone Nargis had struck not Rangoon, but Melbourne or Tokyo, it is unlikely more than a few dozen people, if that, would have died. And that's because we are free, and rich - as free people tend to be with capitalism. Even Bangkok would have survived this far, far easier.

But in Burma as many as 100,000 are now feared dead - victims not of global warming, but of a tyranny that has left them poor and defenceless.

snip

Whenever the Burmese people tried to protest against this junta-made poverty, and to demand democracy, they were shot - so often and in such numbers that China is now about the only ally the junta has left. In this way does resource-ravenous China, Olympics host, export its tyranny to the world.

Now consider how this junta - so brutal, unaccountable, incompetent, tyrannical and isolated -- has handled this latest disaster.

Two days before Cyclone Nargis hit, India's Meteorological Department warned the junta's minions it was coming, and where.

But Burma's state-owned media, one of the crudest propaganda outfits I've seen, issued no mass alerts. Indeed, illegal Voice of America broadcasts probably did more to warn Burma's civilians to take shelter than did Burma's own radio station.

The lack of warning to the population, who live in shacks and shanty's that make many of New Orlean's wards appear as mansions by comparison, was unspeakable. Even US Florida citizens, many of whom live in manuf homes, know their protections against the elements are severely limited. But at least they are told of impending doom and given the change to relocate to safer digs.

As if the Burmese/Myanmar authorities hadn't committed enough cardinal sins against their people, they are risking even more lives with their stubborn refusal to allow US aid.

Even now, the junta is killing people with its paranoia. Disaster assessment teams and helicopters from the United States have been blocked from coming in to prepare a huge rescue, and foreign aid teams not already in-country had their applications for visas stalled and aid shipments stopped.

Foreign journalists, whose reports would help raise appeal money, have been banned.

The UN is now "intensely" negotiating with the junta to let in aid workers and ease customs regulations on aid - literally begging the junta to let the world save its people.

So slow has the junta been to let in help, that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of aid group Medicins Sans Frontieres, suggested the UN Security Council adopt a resolution allowing aid to be flown into the country by force. China, naturally, is against such interference in the affairs of its "friend".

Apparently, the "junta" has allowed some shipments in... as long as they were bribed with sufficient cash. Which makes them not much more despicable than Gore, dutifully marketing his global warming panic to further line his fat ass pockets.

Beam me up, Scotty. I am quite sure I do not belong on this planet anymore.

Future not so rosy for biofuels UNFOA sez unfair to women

Let me put a disclosure right up front... I never saw ethanol as "the future", didn't think it wise but in small local quantities at best. There were many reasons for it.

First, it costs more power to create the dang thing than it yields. If you're trying to "conserve", where does that get us?

Second, there was no way it wouldn't affect food prices, or alter the supply/demand ratio.

Third, I'm no professional farmer, but even I know that you deplete ground nutrients and natural resources with repetitive crops. That's why smart farmers always do crop rotations... to replace nutrients.

To add to all the latest "piling on" negative press ethanol and biofuels have been getting lately, comes the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. And they've added the "unfair to women" handle with their latest study, "Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production".

It's important to understand that this is not focused on US biofuel production, but also developing nations. This lends more understanding to their cry of foul for women.... that they may have less access to the land ownership.

The study notes that large-scale plantations for the production of liquid biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel require an intensive use of resources and inputs to which small farmers, particularly women, traditionally have limited access. These resources include land and water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

“Unless policies are adopted in developing countries to strengthen the participation of small farmers, especially women in biofuel production by increasing their access to land, capital and technology - gender inequalities are likely to become more marked and women’s vulnerability to hunger and poverty further exacerbated,” said Yianna Lambrou, co-author of the paper entitled Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production – Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities. “Biofuel production certainly offers opportunities for farmers – but they will only trickle down to the farm level, especially to women, if pro-poor policies are put in place that also empower women.”

The report also goes to the extent that if the biofuel crop is competitive with say firewood and food crops, it can shrink the latter's resources and cause women (who are traditionally responsible for gathering the firewood and food) have to trek further. sigh.... obviously not a US issue. We just hop in our SUV's and "gather" at the local supermart while the cord of firewood is delivered to our doorstep.

The FOA gender'ists also worry about the female managerial work impact as well... as women hold agromanagement positions, and crop rotation can be all but eliminated. So who needs their knowledge when they just plan on repeating the same crop year after year, despite soil repercussions?

What the study did not factor in was a possible creation of jobs and product... i.e. the need for nutrient replenishment and it's production, sale and distribution. But let's not nitpick about their lack of vision here.

Then, of course, they bring up the low-skilled jobs created, and the unequal wages/benefits between men and women working the biofuel crop fields.

Hey.... I'm not making this stuff up, as "out there" as it sounds. But the upshot of the attachment of the gender "foul" label just could sound the death knell of biofuels in a very PC-driven international community.

And, ya know, while I'm LMAO at the study itself, I won't necessarily be unhappy to see the biofuel industry take the hit. In fact this whole ethanol roller-coaster ride that the Bush WH (and it's more than willing accomplice, Congress), has taken us on really just proves once again a simple reality. That no matter what man can think up to slow supposed man-made global warming, it generally causes as many, or more, problems as it solves.

But I sure feel for all those who've already spent big bucks, banking on it's future.

NOAA study knocks Gore off his papal throne

Florida's Sun-Sentinel has some bad news for Al Gore. His claims in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, bear more resemblance to his chosen title than to reality.

To quote from an analysis of the flick by Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for the Weather Underground:

Hurricanes and severe weather

The biggest failure in the movie's presentation of science comes in the discussion hurricanes and severe weather events. The devastation wrought by Katrina is used to very dramatic effect to warn of the dangers climate change presents. We are told that Katrina grew "stronger and stronger and stronger" as it passed over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico that were heated up by global warming.

We are told that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, but not provided information on the great amount of uncertainty and vigorous scientific debate on this issue. Graphs showing recent record insurance losses from natural disasters are presented, but no mention is made of how increasing population and insistence on building in vulnerable areas are the predominant factors causing recent high insurance claims from disasters such as Katrina.

Gore points to some unprecedented events in 2004 as evidence of increasing severe weather events worldwide--the record 10 typhoons in Japan, the most tornadoes ever in the U.S., and the appearance of Brazil's first hurricane ever. However, examples of this kind are meaningless. No single weather event, or unconnected series of severe weather events such as Gore presents, are indicative of climate change.

In particular, the IPCC has not found any evidence that climate change has increased tornado frequency, or is likely to. Gore doesn't mention the unusually quiet tornado season of 2005, when for the first time ever, no tornadoes were reported in Oklahoma in the month of May.

Turns out NOAA studies suggest just the opposite is likely to happen. And for the very same reason these past hurricane seasons have proven to be a media bust. Because of the wind shears, inhibiting the hurricanes' growth.

Following in the footsteps of an earlier study, government scientists on Tuesday said warmer oceans should translate to fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States.

snip

"Using data extending back to the middle 19th century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up," Chunzai Wang, a physical oceanographer and climate scientist with NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, said in a prepared statement.

snip

The study found that the warming of the Pacific and Indian oceans plays an important role in determining hurricane activity in the Atlantic.

A study released in December found that as the Atlantic basin becomes hotter, hurricane intensity likely won't increase and might even deflate somewhat. That study found that ocean's heat acts to stabilize the upper atmosphere, which, in turn, hurts a storm's ability to build.

snip

Regarding the most recent study, Wang said vertical wind shear is not the only factor that determines Atlantic hurricane activity, but noted it is an important one. Other factors include atmospheric humidity, sea level pressure, and sea surface temperature, he said.

Observations from 1854 to 2006 show almost all the world's oceans have warmed, particularly in large areas of the tropical regions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, the study found. That warming has increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic and suppressed hurricane activity, the NOAA study found.

My my... Gore's prophesies are sure to take a beating now... provided the media will bother to report this on any scale. NOAA is not an unrespected player in the climate world. Maybe... just maybe, with Florida real estate prices in the tank, it's a good time to acquire that beach front property!

Ill wind about to blow Romney's way

It was April of last year when I first posted on then Gov. Mitt Romney, Chappaquiddick Ted and the US Congress demonstrating "forked tongue" on their dedication to alternative energy. More specifically, the US Congress granted Mitt Romney the power to kill the Cape Wind Associates LLC's plan to put a wind farm off of Martha's Vineyard.

Mitt - being the slick, friends in high places, kind of guy that he is, with a serious penchant towards liberal progressive policies - teamed up with buddy Ted and did just that - killed the project. Together they are on record, citing fears that it would damage tourism, and devalue properties within sight of the wind farm. Obviously, Chappaquiddick Ted's property falls into the latter.

But it's a new day, and the project is breathing new life. While Romney is out on the campaign trail, professing his devotion to alternative energy to any and all pundits with short memories, there's a new Dem Guv in town. Gov. Deval Patrick publicly opposed the blockage by Romney and Kennedy then, he remains in favor of the project today.

In the meantime, Cape Wind's Jim Gordon has been plugging along to hurdle the obstacles placed before him by Kennedy and Romney, aided by the US Congress. And today, the Boston Globe reports the first hurdle has, indeed, been hurdled successfully.

The nation's first proposed offshore wind-energy project cleared its most formidable hurdle yesterday as the US Minerals Management Service declared that the wind farm off Cape Cod would have little lasting impact on wildlife, navigation, and tourism.

snip

The Minerals Management Service reviewed Cape Wind's impact on noise, coastal vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, tourism, and aviation, as well as other issues. Wildlife and fish would be affected minimally, except for a "moderate" impact on some birds, the report said. And, Rodney Cluck, who oversaw the agency's review, said, "we feel we can mitigate most of those" effects. The report determined there would be a "minor" impact on tourism.

The altered ocean view from boats was the only "major" impact the federal analysis cited - although the analysis did not attempt to weigh the 440-foot-high wind turbines' aesthetics, a subjective issue at the heart of opposition to the project since it was proposed in 2001.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound complains the wind energy will cost twice the current price (surprise, surprise), and also cites beliefs about dangers to the area's small plane traffic.

In the meantime, the enviro wackos - taking a breather from their constant slamming of the evil "big oil" - are also readying for battle against the clean energy wind farm. Is there no pleasing these idiots, short of a return to 3rd world conditions? sigh..

For environmentalists, one of the most contentious issues has revolved around the wind farm's potential harm to birds, which could be killed by the turbines' fast, rotating blades. That concern led Massachusetts Audubon two years ago to call for more study of the project.

The Minerals Management Service report suggested there could be some bird deaths but that the number is not likely to be large. It concluded the federally endangered roseate tern would not be affected as some environmentalists had feared, because the bird tends to hug the coast.

snip

The report notes that eggs and larvae of bottom-dwelling fish will experience some harm from construction of the wind farm. But it found that fish will probably not be harmed from the sound, vibration, and lighting from the wind farm's operation.

The report did say there would be a moderate impact on the Figawi Race - a three-day sailing event on Nantucket Sound each year that draws thousands of sailors and visitors.

This will certainly resurrect the NIMBY Congressional wealthy. On the heels of banning incandescent lightbulbs and demanding Cafe standards on new autos, they will again be stepping up to the plate to save their wealthy friends' high dollar properties from such an evil sight. And bet your bottom dollar you they are calling in favors from their environmentalist special interest groups to help.

But there's two unintended consequences. One for the DNC - as they publicly battle to save the rich from viewing such an atrocity while forcing energy saving bulbs down the throats of the rest of us.

And the second? There's a GOP candidate out there, desperately trying to mask his liberal record, who will have a lot of explaining to do.

Banning the evil incandescent lightbulb

Unbelievable... Congress strikes again, including in their energy bill (H.R. 6) which.. yes, Bush signed... a ban on the incandescent lightbulb by 2020.

The law mandates that new cars and trucks get 35 miles per gallon by 2020, requires that 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 21 billion gallons of other "advanced biofuels" be produced in the United States by 2022, and mandates that by 2020 light bulbs be 70 percent more efficient in their use of electricity, a provision that is understood, in practical terms, to ban the incandescent light bulb as of that date.

I guess it shouldn't make much difference. Obviously the lights are already "dim" or "out" in the heads of our elected officials....

Global Warming "Truth" varies by funding source?

WA Time has an article by S. A. Miller today - "Scientists doubt climate change". Gist of the article? More than 400 climatologists... many current or former members of the shared Nobel Peace Price UN dept, IPCC - are more loudly disputing the current science used to fuel the hysteria on global warming.

The quotes thru the article, and their reasoning, are too many to excerpt here. So read the link in it's entirety, and decide for yourself.

However what I truly found amusing was demi-god Gore's response to the opposition by such an illustrious group of scientists. That would be, of course, to slam the messenger. From the Gore offices spokesman/woman...

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Let's address the first, and more obvious absurdity... Let's assume the higher number of 30 were (not "may") definitively "paid off", as Gore's office suggests, by the dreaded "big oil". That means a huge 3/4's of one person - not even one body completely - out of every 100 hundred scientists took payola to advance an anti-global warming agenda. Not much to crow about.

But perhaps more amusing to me is Gore's attempt to discredit the scientific analysis that disagrees with his agenda merely because of the source of funding. Get serious... what organizations funded the analyses that Gore uses? Certainly those that have their own agendas as well.

Al Gore - capitalist in action

You can't argue that Al Gore, Nobel Peace prize winner and global warming advocate, doesn't know the principles of capitalism. Create a need, fill the need, and rake in the dough.

He's come under criticism before with his excessive use of personal energy while lecturing the rest of us to cut down. He jets to and fro, collecting beau coup bucks for public speeches. The most recent from the Daily Mail out of the UK... collecting what is tantamount to 3300 English pounds per minute for his speech at The Royal Courts of Justice.

However, a spokesman for Mr Gore, who won his Oscar for the polemic documentary An Inconvenient Truth, told The Mail on Sunday: "Mr Gore donates a percentage of all of his speaking fees to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Ah yes... however what is a "convenient" omission is that the percentage he donates to the Alliance for Climate Protection is also a charity where Gore sits as Chairman of the Board. Non-profits do not mean that those involved work for free. It just means the organization can't show a profit after their expenses... including salaries to board members. I'll wager dollars to euros that Gore walks away with an annual salary that isn't peanuts.

_______________________________

UPDATE 12/10/07

Al Gore was on a CNN interview this AM, on the heels of his formal acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, pushing his causes. He spent some time decrying his own personal use of energy, blaming the media for publishing an global warming skeptical organization claims. After ticking off some independent energy sources at his home, he prounounced himself to be "carbon neutral". Being "neutral" does not imply you are energy conservative. It merely means you've bought off your excess useage to stay status quo... someone else is conserving more so he can use more - ala, "neutral" carbon footprint.

Gore also stated that he and Tipper donated his half mil of Peace Prize money to... ta da.. The Alliance for Climate Protection. To much applause, I might add. No where did the host, or Gore himself, disclose his own personal relationship to the ACP.

_______________________________

Gore is also famous for neutralizing his excessive use of energy with the purchase of carbon offsets. I blogged on this previously, pointing out that Gore buys his offsets from Generation Management LLP - a company which, you guessed it - Al Gore is the Chairman and one of the six founders.

Let's add this up. The man preaches panic for our very survival, advocating energy conservation while simultaneously blowing the doors off on his own carbon footprint in the world. He buys the carbon offsets from himself, and when he's sitting financially fat, donates to a charity that he founded and chairs. Considering the salaries he must get from both, combined with the tax write offs for such noble causes, there is no doubt that Gore has taken capitalism to new and improved heights. All the while presenting himself as the new coming of Mother Earth.

Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker is another who notices the profitable combo of fear mongering, and simultaneously peddling the socially accepted solution to the fear...

More and more people seem to notice that Al Gore is making huge amounts of money while peddling fear of global warming. And he's just getting started. The prospects of serious wealth are unlimited should his recent affiliation with Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins bring about regulatory advantage or public subsidy for schemes to trade carbon emissions, subsidize supposedly-green energy projects, or otherwise capitalize on the world's need for massive quantities of energy.

He's a model entrepreneur for us all... if he weren't so damned hypocritical.

Co-Nobel Peace Prize winner, IPCClabeled "corrupt" by expert

Contrary to conventional media reports, the global warming caused by man theory is far from settled. And now there's an illustrious group of professionals manning an attack on the UN IPCC, aka the co-winner of the latest Nobel Peace Prize. One goes so far as to label it un-reformable and corrupt. Gee what a surprise. Yet another UN arm that's corrupt. No surprise there.

(snip) Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

Grey is no small mental peanut in the climatologist arena. He's a graduate of the U of Cambridge, and holds a PhD in physical chemistry.

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

snip

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

From friend of the IPCC to foe. This will be interesting to watch. Or will it be buried on the back pages by the MSM as a party to the liberal agenda of global control of hte economy.

But my biggest burning questions... do ya think Gore and company will give back their bogus "peace prize" award? I won't be holding my breath....

The Global Warming power & money grab

My saunter thru all these subjects started with one simple Observer article titled "Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film".

"Gore" film indeed... a film slasher with truth as the leading victim. Rather than expounding on the Jamie Doward tirade - suggesting that the judge was somehow manipulated by a big oil lobby via Stewart Dimmock's challenge to mandated Gore film viewing in schools - I focused on the general assault by the reporter.

It's nothing new... the ol' attack the messenger playbook used by all sides of debates. But in this case I had to wonder why I should buy into this argument. If it's so danged evil for the man-didn't-cause-global-warming advocates to have lobbys and funding, then why is it so damned holy for the evil-mankind-created-this-mess-with-evil-big-oil to use the same?

This of course turned my thoughts to the joke we call the Nobel Peace Prize, and the top billing winner, Al Gore and his forgotten, non-news worthy sidekick, the IPCC.

So you know where I'm coming from on this personal op-ed, I will disclose the following up front:

1: Yes, I believe there is global warming

2: No, I don't believe man caused the event, nor contributes to it significantly

3: I don't believe man can effectively do much to change the evolution of the Earth geographically.. no more than one can eternally save a below sea level city against hurricanes from failed levees. Nor can it save the homeowner's property who decided to build at the edge of the San Andrea fault. At some point, Mother Nature will claim what is rightfully hers, despite man's best intentions.

4: I'm all for expanding research and using multi-technology for energy and cleaner fuels. However I am not fool enough to believe we can totally eliminate oil based fuels for the reasons of stability. Until capacitance is truly evolutionary, there's no energy generated when the wind doesn't blow, when the rains don't fall, and when the sun doesn't shine.

And I also believe for every alternative energy, there will be an environmental beef... birds killed by windmills (or wealthy Senators [Kennedy] and cooperating Presidential candidates [Romney] refusing them placed in view of the rich); sea animals hurt by tidal energy turbines or legal disputes and security dangers of energy facilities located in international waters; fish deprived in drought years by dams, etc, etc.

5: And the last disclosure? I believe global warming is all about money, power and global control of the masses and all nation's economies. I think it is another way to "spread the wealth". Not to the masses ala Marx. But to the powerful politicos and entrepreneurs who take advantage of the public hysteria generated by the Reverend Al of the enviro world.

Which now brings me to these idiotic carbon credits. Emissions trading is becoming big business. So make note for your stock market advisor. One such business, Generation Investment Management LLP, was founded in 2004 by none other than our latest Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore. Bubba Al, notorious for his high wattage living, not only eases his conscience for his high energy use by buying carbon offsets... but he eases stress on his bank acounts for that high cost of living by buying those offsets from, essentially, himself.

Gore's ownership of this company, paying himself for his energy use, isn't new news. It was reported earlier this year by both Riehl World View and Mark Steyn in Chicago Sun Times. But somehow, in the wake of the politically motivated Nobel Peace prize award to him along with an arm of the corrupt UN, it has to start the brain cells churning - mulling the "whys "of human insanity. In short, exactly, what's the ulterior motive for creating a new tax loophole, or tax exempt, friendly religion ... The Church of Global Warming?

Let's assume Gore is on some bizarre tea supplement, and is genuinely heartfelt in his desires to save the planet from ourselves. That he sets a deplorable example of what he preaches in energy conservation is one story. He also damns himself as a "for the people kinda guy" by setting up a foundation to personally benefit from one of his proffered "solutions" - emission trading - resulting in simultaneously hosing the little guy ... since companies pass those added offset costs along to the consumers.

The above helps him enrich himself and others of the chosen few... but what does it do to "save the planet"?

Which brings us to the largest problem about the global warming debate. Not that anyone denies the planet is warming up. But, if man persists in assuming it's human induced (absurd, but play with me here...), what does man propose to do about it? Is it like so many other cures? Worse than the malady itself? Staving off a certain death, but only by trading it for a daily life filled with doctors, chemical/radiation treatments, nausea and mounting medical bills, followed by bankruptcy? Somewhere along the line, the quality of life starts to suffer for the end goal of continued existance.

Unfortunately, cure worse than malady is the way it's looking. Not only does the "carbon neutral" money scheme do nothing to reduce supposedly toxic emissions, it has a larger economic effect on nations' GDPs. Take the emission trading concept, a step further, add in the Kyoto Treaty, and we find global economic suicide for development and progress. There's alot of hedging on future values in the process. And we're talking waaaaay futures.

Finally, as new study by Dr. David Montgomery of CRA International shows, a global emission trading system is not workable.5 Emission trading will work only if all the relevant markets exist and operate effectively; all the important actions by the private sector have to be motivated by price expectations far in the future. Creating that motivation requires that emission trading establish not only current but future prices, and create a confident expectation that those prices will be high enough to justify the current R&D and investment expenditures required to make a difference. This requires that clear, enforceable property rights in emissions be defined far into the future so that emission rates for 2030, for example, can be traded today in confidence that they will be valid and enforceable on that future date.

The above is an excerpt from the ACCF (American Council for Capital Formation) testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion Hearing. Subject? “U.S.-International Climate Change Approach: A Clean Technology Solution”. And using EU Emissions Trading System as a model, their economic projections were not good.

Further, several different economic analyses show that if the EU were to actually meet its emission reduction targets under the protocol the economic costs would be high. For example, new macroeconomic analyses by Global Insight, Inc. show the cost of complying with Kyoto for major EU countries could range between 0.8% of GDP to over 3 % in 2010. (See Figure 1.)

snip chart... go to link to view please

According to Global Insight, the reason for the significant economic cost is that energy prices, driven by the cost of cap/trade emission permits, have to rise sharply in order to curb demand and reduce GHG emissions. The tighter targets being considered for the post-2012 are also costly, with GDP losses ranging from 1.0 % of GDP to 4.5% for a 3 reduction to 60% below 2000 levels of emissions in the year 2020. Even the EU Commission for the Environment admits that emission reductions could cost as much as 1.3% of GDP by 2030. The fact that the European Environmental Agency projects that the EU will be 7% above 1990 levels of emissions in 2010 (instead of 8% below) demonstrates that the mandatory ETS system as currently structured is not working – and therefore the boost in energy costs noted by the Pew report could well be substantial.

It appears that emissions trading not only drops countrys' GDPs, but also drives up the cost of energy itself. Is that what demi-god Gore has in mind??

Another factor, the bigger corporations have the offset need. The smaller corporation is essentially "subsidized" by selling the carbon offsets they won't be using. Or, to give you more real perspective, third world countries under despotic leadership, incapable of using their carbon allotment, will sell their overage and line their own pockets wtih the payments. We have just given dictators financial incentive to keep their citizens in poverty.

Here's another visual on the same lines... possibly and painfully a viablility, and concocted by Mark Steyn

So in the Reverend Al's case it doesn't matter that he's lit up like Times Square on V-E Day. Because he's paid for his extravagant emissions. He has a carbon-offset trader in an environmentally friendly carbon-credits office suite who buys "carbon offsets" for Al from, say, a terrorist mastermind in a cave in the Pakistani tribal lands who's dramatically reduced his energy usage mainly because every time he powers up his cell phone or laptop a light goes on in Washington and an unmanned drone starts heading his way. So, aside from a basic cable subscription to cheer himself up watching U.S. senators talking about "exit strategies" on CNN 24/7, the terrorist mastermind doesn't deplete a lot of resources. Which means Tipper can watch Al give a speech on a widescreen plasma TV, where Al looks almost as wide as in life, and she doesn't have to feel guilty because it all comes out . . . carbon-neutral!

Sorry.. had to include that. The notion of Al's purchased carbon funds for his house and globe trotting going to a terrorist to use for jihad - AND as a reward for their environmental frugality - just strikes me as a twisted and foreseeable reality. If there's one good thing you can say about a terrorist: by shunning western development enmasse and keeping it only for their leadership to wage jihad, they are most definitely environmental friendly. Until they get their hands on chemical weapons or nukes, at least.

The point to all this? Follow the global warming power and money, and recognize it as the scam it is. We're being taken for a ride, folks. Big time. And, as usual, it's all about money and power to regulate the masses. See it for what it is, and hold off on building that ark.

More poll BSThe media with the most agenda driven headlines wins...

Another major analysis poll for global warming by man theorists... and another poll of the mostly uninformed.

BBC proudly touts the headline:

Man causing climate change - poll

Climate change is causing erratic weather around the world Large majorities in many countries now believe human activity is causing global warming,

a BBC World Service poll suggests.

Ask 22,000 people in 21 countries, and what do you get?

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.

And just who were these 79% of people who pronounce man as the cause of climate change? And how closely are they paying attention? Again, the all country averages clarified by going to the *real* poll document...

Asked how much they have heard about climate change or global warming, seven in ten overall say that they have heard a great deal (35%) or some (35%).

A majority in 16 countries – including many developing countries – say that they have heard at least something about the issue.

In only a few countries do large numbers say that they have heard little or nothing, including Indonesia (65%), Kenya (53%), Nigeria (48%), and Russia (64%).

Again we start with a flawed database... a bunch of self-admitted "I dunnos". And this is an issue that few are equipped to deal with, as it's technical, scientific, historic and research detailed in it's foundation. Hang... even the great climatologist minds can't agree.

But there's a big difference between hearing "a great deal" and "some". That, however did not stop the BBC article and the poll summary from conveniently lumping the 1/3rd media informed and 1/3rd almost media informed into one big number to look like an impressive, knowledgeable majority.

Once more, only 6 out of the 21 countries had over 50% hearing "a great deal". Again, only about a 1/3. The two highest "in the know" individual countries were France and Great Britain. Even they were at only 62 and 61% respectively.

Starting on pg 8 of the poll PDF are the color coded country-by-country results. To give you a frightening example, only 32% of the Spaniards heard "a great deal", but that didn't stop a whopping 93% of them blaming man as the significant cause. And 91% of those well informed geniuses said that *major* steps were necessary.

Again... deep shit, folks.... sigh

The US citizens had 59% saying they heard a "great deal" about global warming - hard to believe, eh? With all the news stations and whatnow around, only 59%?? I guess they're too busy with those reality shows, eh? But let's go on. 71% believe it warming is caused by humans, but only 59% felt major steps should be taken. Oh yes... and 75% don't think less wealthy countries should get a pass on limiting emissions.

Hummm... Al Gore's work here is obviously not done... LOL

Canada had even less "great deal" responders than the US. Only 56%. But even more of them (77%) said man was at fault.

The poll questionnaire itself is also interesting reading. At least the first question was if they knew whit about the issue. But answering "no" didn't get you off the hook. Second question...

Do you believe that human activity, including industry and transportation, is or is not a significant cause of climate change?

Yo... how about the alternative being asked? ala...Do you believe the warming is part of Earth's historic cycle? But we'll never know the answer to that one. That one questions could have changed the whole poll results, and not proven very agenda beneficial.

The next question just assumed a yes confirmation of question #2:

As you may know there is some discussion these days about whether it is necessary to take steps to reduce the impact of human activities that are thought to cause global warming or climate change. Would you say that you believe that:

READ IN ORDER. CHOOSE ONE.
01 - It is not necessary to take any steps
02 - It is necessary to take modest steps over the coming years
03 - It is necessary to take major steps starting very soon

Well now, if the other alternative was a natural cycle on Earth, and that option wasn't offered up, then you were forced to pick one of the multiple choice answers. And since you only had a yes or no choice on #2, where else is there to go??

Oh yes, it should be noted that EVERY country believed that the wealthy nations (read the US, of course) should provide the $s and technology to the less wealthy nations for those *major* steps.

Naturally, the poll points out that those who have heard more about global warming favor major steps, and those who have heard nothing do not. Ya think? Duh wuh...

So it stands to reason that the truth of polls is what it has always been...

1: that the media with the most headlines supporting their "man causes global warming" agenda wins "the truth" game...

2: that headlines truly drive the opinions reflected in the polls.

3: and that we're lucky if even a 1/3 of poll responders pay any amount of significant attention to the issue, or even to the agenda driven media headlines.


As for me, what I derive after seeing poll after poll is the citizens of the world are in serious need of diverse education on the issues. And they aren't getting that from the media and their polls.

Gore not so convincing afterall....

It appears Gore still has an uphill battle in convincing the population his chicken little theory of man-caused global warning is fact.

In an online survey by green leaning Pocket Issues, publisher Emma Hardcastle must be beside herself with frustration that the propaganda machines dutiful efforts aren't yielding the desired results.... especially in light of the fact that it was her own organization that conducted the survey.

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who
believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.And 65 percent think that scientists'catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

snip

That's right, Emma. Al Gore's effectiveness appears more limited to the Hollywood types, eh? But she's not giving up...

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

Oh yes... typical "there oughta be a law" mentality. It's always the job of government. puleeeeze.... Like they're the model of efficiency in anything???

No, no, no... it's global cooling, stupid!

Looks like Al Gore may only have another 12-13 years to revel in his god-like status of global warming advocate. This guy sez, by 2020, we'll have global cooling.. and it may last longer than the 11 year cycle and endanger food sources.

All this assuming the wacky terrorists don't blow us all up in their quest for their Caliphate prior....

It's good to be middle aged. My patience with human nonsense is truly wearing thin.

So much for Kyoto Treaty logic....

Air trends 'amplifying' warming
By Richard Black, Environment Correspondent, BBC News

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.

Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.

Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

DOH! Now just what does all this new scientific bunk say about the Kyoto Treaty that has been shoved down the US's throat for years? That scientists truly know not of what they speak. Hey.... these research results provide a better case for increased air pollution as protection! Now don't that just rattle trees everywhere.

Then again, just as they could have jumped to the wrong conclusions as the foundation for Kyoto, this little ditty could carry as much (or as little) merit as well. Afterall, what the heck does man really know anyway, right?

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.

This trend received some publicity under the term "global dimming".

But in the 1980s, it appears to have reversed, according to two papers published last year in the journal Science.

snip

The reversal of "global dimming" has been proposed in some circles as an alternative explanation for climatic change, removing the need to invoke human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Wild dismissed this picture. His analysis suggests that "global dimming" and the man-made greenhouse effect may have cancelled each other out until the early 1980s, but now "global brightening" is adding to the impact of human greenhouse emissions.

"There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations," he told the BBC News website.

Now there's a sentence that won't win any popularity contests for Dr. Wild amongst activists... "maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming, but due to solar variations."

Summarily, Dr. Wild's theory revolves around the notion that most of the climate impact results are due to increased moisture vapor, resulting from the solar variations. Whether increased moisture or solar variations, it's safe to say that it's not looking good for the enviro-wackos' case accusing evil mankind for all the climatic changes Mother Nature is evoking.

And speaking of those assaulting mankind for it all, someone ought to make a call to the day late and vote short, Al Gore and bring him up to snuff on the issues before he makes even more a fool of himself.

As a U.S. senator, Gore gave global warming talks 15 years ago in Washington that relied almost entirely on scientists' best guesses and computer models.

Now bolstered by real climate changes, he has gone Hollywood, with movies of collapsing ice shelves, then-and-now shots of vanishing glaciers and lakes, telegenic photos of dwindling wildlife species — plus floods, tornadoes and, of course, hurricanes.

"We have been blind to the fact that the human species is now having a crushing impact on the ecological system of the planet," Gore said.

snip

"This is the first foretaste of a cup that will be offered to us again and again and again until we regain our moral authority," Gore told members of Ceres, an organization of companies, investors and environmentalists pressing for greener behavior by corporations.

Boy did we dodge a bullet in the 2000 elections.... woof.