Global Warming Hoax Search

Your Global Warming Hoax Tube

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Wikipedia Censors Global Warming Skeptics

Wikipedia Censors Global Warming Skeptics
Forbes.com
Rich Kargaard

June 12, 2008

Believe that global warming is the “moral issue of our time,” as does Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and you can justify a redistributive porker like the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill. Had it passed--it won't this time--this bill would've knocked 1% off of American gross domestic product per year for decades. The cap-and-traders are sure to try their luck again after Jan. 20, 2009, when a pledged cap-and-trader--John McCain or Barack Obama--will become the next U.S. president.

Cap-and-trade is predicated on the belief that humans cause global warming. As more energy is used and carbon is burned, global warming will accelerate until it melts every glacier and swamps every coastal city by 2050. That is, if hurricanes, tornadoes and very angry polar bears haven’t killed us by then.Fact is, the only thing accelerating thing about global warming is the number of scientists who are finding the courage to speak out against it. Finally.

Scientist Lawrence Solomon names names in a new book called The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Persecution and Fraud.

From the book’s jacket:

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on global warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Professor Paul Reiter--chief of insects and infectious diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Professor Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--says that "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists and former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions, and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Professor Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project, says that "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and adjunct professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous … alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Professor Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists, says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre and vice president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, argues that changes in the sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the U.N. to man-made CO2.

The Deniers is getting traction on Amazon.com and might be the book that destroys the global warming argument for a generation. Don’t count on the mainstream press to do this good work.

It has staked its reputation on Al Gore orthodoxy. So has, sadly as it turns out, a source I rather like: Wikipedia. the online encyclopedia of Big Brother censorship on global warming dissent and provides blow-by-blow evidence. Solomon names aWikipedia editor named Kim Dabelstein Petersen as the global warming enforcer. But the pro-global warming bias clearly comes from the top. Global warming is a pet hobby of founder

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Global Warmings New Consensus

Junk Science: Global Warming's New 'Consensus'

Friday, May 23, 2008

By Steven Milloy

There’s a new global warming consensus in town.

It’s too bad the once-level-headed but now chicken-hearted Bush administration already has skedaddled, perhaps leaving our standard of living at the mercy of Barack Obama and his high regard for the international hate-America crowd.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..."
Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories.

The OISM petition represents a direct challenge to the Al Gore-touted notion that a consensus of scientists has determined that catastrophic manmade global warming is real and that any debate over the science is pointless.

You might think that the Bush administration — which has been viciously attacked by Al Gore and the greens for pulling the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol and being generally skeptical of the science underlying global warming alarmism — would have embraced the new petition as support for its resistance to mandatory greenhouse gas emission caps.

But you’d be wrong. When given the chance to embrace vindication at a White House press briefing this week, deputy press secretary Dana Perino couldn’t run away fast enough.

A White House reporter asked Perino: "WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 PhDs, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth’s climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 scientists?"

While Perino could have responded with something akin to either "Yes, we know about the petition and we’re looking into it" or "No, we didn’t know about the petition but we will certainly look into it," she instead dismissed the question with an abrupt, "I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What’s your next question?"

When the reporter tried to follow up with "That’s all?" Perino seemed to insist on remaining oblivious to the petition and its import by stating, "That’s all I’m going to say."

Well, at least Perino didn’t pull an "Al Gore" and label Dyson and the other 31,071 scientist-signatories as members of the Flat Earth Society.

In Perino’s defense, one might say that it is reasonable to disregard such petitions since science is about what is known or what can be proved about the natural world through systematic investigation rather than the number of scientists who are willing to publicly commit to a particular opinion.

On the other hand, global warming alarmism has been marketed to the public on the basis of the latter rather than the former.

We’ve been told that there’s a "consensus" of scientists — most often exemplified by the group of scientists working under the auspices of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — that agrees manmade greenhouse gas emissions are or will wreak havoc on the climate.

Although dispute exists over whether there is, in fact, an actual consensus within the IPCC, head counts of scientists seem to be the name of the global warming game.

Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine would seem to trump the 600 or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, the White House has taken such a beating over the years on climate that facts no longer matter.

As further evidence of its shell-shocked state of fact avoidance, just last week the Bush administration announced that it was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act — even though there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago and predictions of the bear’s demise are entirely based on politically inspired speculation.
The fact of the 31,000 scientists should matter to the White House, given what likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said this week.

In a campaign stop in Oregon, Obama called for the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming. "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.' … That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen," he said.

A President Obama apparently would decide how to regulate the pantries, thermostats and modes of personal transportation of his fellow Americans based on the emotional temperature of every non-American who happens to harbor an opinion on how we should live.

And although Republican presidential hopeful John McCain hasn’t been as blunt as Obama in respect to rolling back the American lifestyle, as reported in this column last week, he’s been drinking from the same batch of green Kool-Aid.

Sadly, the initial response from the Bush administration to relevant new facts that could prevent the imminent Obama-McCain attack on our standard of living seems to be, "See no consensus, hear no consensus, speak no consensus."

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Monday, June 2, 2008

Cap and Spend

Cap and Spend

Wall Street Journal

June 2, 2008

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances.

When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.

Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that's trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.

Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify.

There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation," whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we're just starting.

Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far.

The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law.

If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral. A "tax swap" would offset the deadweight taxes that impede growth and reduce employment. All the more so because even the cap-and-trade friendly Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would reduce GDP between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050.

Most liberal economists favor using the money to reduce the payroll tax. That has the disadvantage politically of adding Social Security into the debate. A cleaner tax swap would compensate for the new tax on business by cutting taxes on investment – such as slashing the 35% U.S. corporate rate that is the second highest in the developed world. Then there's the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010 and would raise the overall tax burden by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. Democrats who want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends are proposing a double tax wallop by embracing Warner-Lieberman-Boxer.

All of this helps explain why so many in Congress are so enamored of "doing something" about global warming. They would lay claim to a vast new chunk of the private economy and enhance their own political power.

My Rant

The claim that climate change is direct result of man's energy consumption is simply unproven and politically motivated. While they propound lies that certain lightbulbs or cars will destroy the earth and raise ocean levels as much as 20 feet within the next century, fascists, like Al Gore, fly around in their Gulfstream jets and live in homes that use 22 times the energy of an average American's home! Their propaganda is outrageous and potentially catastrophic for the economies of United States, the developed world and developing world.

The proof of global warming or man's influence on climate change is not settled science. Just consider the source of the big lie: the proselytizing hypocritical high priest of the pagan environmental religion Al Gore or the other Kool-Aid drinking climateers from the left such as Learjet liberals, Hollywood high school drop-outs, billonaire elitists, the left-leaning mainstream media, the United Nations, academia, environmental radicals, socialists, other anti-capitalists and so called "researchers", "experts" and/or "scientists" whose paychecks depend upon the apparent existence of the "issue".

United States energy conservation and independence is a worthy goal that should be supported by Republicans, the Democrat Party, true Democrats, Independents and environmentalists. Energy independence is a major national security concern. However, lying to our people, implementing the cap & trade boondoggle which will crush our economy or doing anything that will cause the United States to transfer an portion of its sovereignty to the United Nations is idiotic. Not in my name!