Feb 19

As the public’s belief in man-made global warming/climate change fades, perhaps the alarmists can heap some of the blame for the failure of the hoax on George W. Bush’s shoulders.  A letter to the editor of The Oregonian:

“Climate change” is politically correct nonsense, but Republican pollster Frank Luntz and George W. Bush are to blame, not Al Gore. Luntz sold the phrase to Bush: “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” While “global warming” has catastrophic connotations attached, “climate change” suggests a more controllable challenge. Bush agreed.

Republican political appointees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where I was a biologist, forced scientists to always use “climate change” instead of the accurate and alarming “global warming.”

DAVE MILLER
Astoria

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Aug 04

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D., writes in The Oregonian:

Charlatans use every opportunity to promote climate hysteria, claiming that the global temperature is rising inexorably. Yet they overwhelmingly lack training in physics and meteorology.  And the best satellite data show that the Earth as a whole has been gradually cooling for a decade.They love “green science” because it is wonderfully suited to selling expensive climate “solutions” to the scientifically challenged.  Never mind that it is neither green nor science, just politics.  Never mind that climate variations are perfectly natural and unstoppable.  An army of propagandists say that man is the culprit, and carbon taxes are the solution.

If President Obama’s climte agenda passes, expect the problem to slowly fade – because it never existed in the first place and few will tolerate escalating energy prices that dramatically lower our standard of living.

Real science is based on real evidence that can be independently verified, not on testimonials from those funded by politicians.

Real evidence of climate change is easy to find.

Real evidence that man caused it via greenhouse gases is completely missing.

Man does cause local warming through urbanization. This biases many terrestrial temperature records, providing fodder for alarmists.

According to The Oregonian, Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett, Oregon, and holds a doctorate in Physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

Also, Dr. Fulks is one of the 31,478 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, and one of 9,029 Ph.Ds who have signed it.

Note: There is no embedded link to the source article, because one could not be found via www.oregonlive.com at the time this was posted. This excerpt was transcribed by GORE LIED from the dead tree edition that landed on my driveway this morning.

UPDATE: The source link has now been posted.

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Dec 01

Global cooling "is becoming politically bothersome"

By Editor climate change, Global cooling Comments Off on Global cooling "is becoming politically bothersome"

John Ray (Greenie Watch) received the following e-mail from Henry N. Geraedts, PhD:

Might we be witnessing the third morphing of “Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change” politics? I think so. The first iteration was the original “Man-made-CO2-driven Anthropogenic Global Warming” [AGW], aka Hansen and Gore, Opus 1, 1988. When however, it became evident to all but the most shuttered dogmatists that global temperatures peaked in 1998, levelled off and that since 2003 key temperature metrics show what appears to be an accelerating decline, AGW handlers deftly and conveniently morphed it into its second iteration, and it took on the more nebulous form of man-made “Climate Change”.

So what if the data runs counter to your contention that [Man-made] CO2 is the causal agent in “Global Warming”? Just buttress CO2 with other previously insignificant “greenhouse gases” [at all cost avoiding mentioning water vapour, by far the dominant GHG but likely a negative forcing..] and voila, the man-made component of the “climate crisis” can now again be held up as the determining driver in what just happens to be the most complex, multi-variate, non-linear and poorly understood system known to mankind. The fact that all of this irrevocably relegated the AGW/ACC case to the realms of alchemy, astrology and other pseudo “sciences” didn’t bother the dogmatists in the least.

Inconveniently however, “climate change” for the past 6 years or so has meant an increasingly well documented global cooling trend. To the point where this is becoming politically bothersome. Two governments with enough backbone to do so -in New Zealand and Canada respectively- have ever so cautiously indicated that there are sufficient question marks in the margin to slow down the pace of environmental policy commitments, focus firmly on economic matters and even [may the heavens forbid] undertake a critical review of the “science” said to prove “man-made climate change”. In the recent election, Canadian voters singularly punished the Liberal Party which ran on a carbon tax based “Green Shift” platform.

My sense is that given that the enviro-political gearbox clearly is not meshing as smoothly as before, we are starting to witness AGW’s third political morphing in which both the EU and the US serve up to their voters a reworked political message about the need for GHG reductions, gradually unwinding the purported “climate crisis” argument in favour of the a new and overarching need to secure “energy independence” [from Russia for Europe and OPEC for the US]? Current attempts to salvage the EU’s 20/20/20 GHG mitigation program are increasingly being held up in that light, and Obama’s read-between-the-lines messages about the environment and energy appear to fit the mould.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Nov 26

Wind farms cause climate change? Which makes it anthropogenic climate change.

By Editor climate change, wind power Comments Off on Wind farms cause climate change? Which makes it anthropogenic climate change.

Irony can be a beautiful thing.

Live Science reports:

A new study suggests that massive wind farms could steer storms and alter the weather if extensive fields of turbines were built, according to a news report.



Such massive wind farming would slow wind speeds by 5 or 6 mph as the turbines literally stole wind from the air. A ripple effect would occur in the form of waves radiating across the Northern Hemisphere that could, days later, run into storms and alter their courses by hundreds of miles.

The researchers “acknowledged the hypothetical wind farm was far larger than anything humans are likely to build,” according to the Web site, but if Department of Energy projections for wind farming are met by 2030 (for the country to get 20 percent of its electricity from wind), “it could probably have an effect,” James McCaa of 3Tier, Inc., a renewable energy forecasting company based in Seattle, is quoted as saying.

This hypothetical wind farm is far larger than anything humans are likely to build? Not at all. This what T. Boone Pickens wants. This is what Al Gore wants. This is what President-elect Obama wants.

We are told that climate change is OK as long as it’s natural. We are told that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is bad. Very bad.

So is Al Gore going to now tell us that wind farms must be eliminated because they might cause anthropogenic climate change? Heck no.

But Al, should we practice the precautionary principle? We can’t be too careful, can we? The wind farms you want to build may alter the climate in a way that will affect our children, and their children. Our children might get very cold, or they might get very hot, or they might get very wet, or something. Whatever it is that happens to them, it will be very bad because we might have caused it, and we must feel very guilty.

No, Al Gore will not practice his much-loved Precautionary Principle and advocate for the elimination of wind energy because the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Crisis is really all about power, and tax revenue, and Al Gore’s retirement, and his legacy – even though he continues to deny it.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload