Jul 13

Solar panel manufacturer SolarWorld has cleverly turned Sarah Palin’s famous “Drill, baby, drill!” on it’s head with a “Shine, baby, shine” campaign to sell the company’s solar panels, and has hired actor Larry Hagman (formerly oil tycoon JR Ewing on TV’s Dallas many years ago).

The Oregonian reports:

Actor Larry Hagman was all about petroleum when he played oil magnate J.R. Ewing in television’s longrunning “Dallas” series.

These days, he’s pitching solar energy with a new slogan — “Shine, baby, shine,” — soon to air on a television near you.

Hagman is the face of a new ad campaign for SolarWorld, the German company making solar cells in Hillsboro. He admits the slogan is a jab at Sarah Palin‘s “Drill, baby, drill,” refrain during the 2008 presidential campaign.

So, while SolarWorld has hire Hagman to promote the (pardon the pun) sunny phrase “Shine, baby, shine”, Hagman has a private (again, pardon the pun) darker message to accompany the clever cuteness of his company’s new slogan that is more like “Scare, baby, scare”:

“‘Shine, baby, shine’ is an inexhaustible source of energy,” said Hagman, who plans to address the Intersolar trade show today in San Francisco. “When affordable oil gives out, we’re in real trouble — I mean the collapse of civilization, within 15 to 20 years.”

Pathetic.  These people just cannot resist the urge to resort to alarmism to achieve their profits and political power.

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tagged with:
Mar 29

Peter Hadfield (Potholer54 on YouTube) is a warmer who wisely says that exaggerating the consequences of climate change “is not the way to gain public understanding or trust”.  Hadfield also claims to have an amazing power: Converting AGW skeptics to warmers:

…two years ago I began a series of videos on YouTube to explain the science, and rebut urban myths that spin round the internet and end up on the opinion pages of the Daily Express and the Wall Street Journal. The result has been astonishing. My channel, Potholer54, now has over 27,000 subscribers. The videos have been mirrored by others all over the internet, and several university lecturers have asked if they can use it in their environmental science classes. Most importantly, former sceptics tell me the videos have changed their minds about the reality of climate change.

Well, I watched a few, and I remain unconvinced.  Yes, Hadfield does thankfully avoid alarming imagined scenarios to scare his audience to death, but his arguments are mostly the same, tired, warmed-over trope that we’re all used to.  For example, he spins the Climategate e-mails without noting the context, i.e. that the majority of them deal with the at-any-costs conspiracy to publish the Wahl and Ammann paper to prop up the Hockey Stick that was killed by the McIntyre and McKitrick paper so that W & A can be included in IPCC AR4 (read: Tom Fuller and Steve Mosher’s, Climategate: The CRUtape Letters).

But, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Let’s give Hadfield some credit for basically calling Al Gore a liar:

That success, however, comes at a price. It means looking at the science – not scary and unrealistic images of submerged cities. It means accepting the fact that Al Gore is not always right, and he should not be defended when he’s wrong.

Hat tip: Climate Depot

5 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tagged with:
Mar 15

A guest post by John O’Sullivan:

In this article we will prove there is no consensus among climate scientists about man made global warming. Also, we shall see that it is the highly politicised UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is the root source of the spurious claims of impending climate ‘catastrophe.’

The IPCC uses the word ‘catastrophe’ more than 300 times in its 2007 Fourth Report before concluding that we have roughly a 50/50 chance of avoding catastrophic runaway climate change. But only if we substantially reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global temperatures rising by 2˚C.

However, since the Climategate scandal first leaked into the blogosphere in November 2009 we have found, almost on a weekly basis, revelations to support the case that man made global warming alarmism (AGW) is just that: alarmist.

Reeling from the embarrassment of debunked lies over melting glaciers, African crop failures, melting polar ice caps and with no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for 15 years, climate catastrophe fear spreaders have now taken a bunker mentality clinging to their mantra that there still is some ‘consensus’ of scientific opinion backing their nightmare message. Perhaps the most repeated fallacies are:

(1.)  ‘most climate scientists’ agree that mankind is ‘catastrophically’ impacting the climate and;

(2.)   that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion.’

In online debates I routinely challenge alarmist proponents to show me proof of these claims. On the issue of (1.) regarding that ‘scientific majority’ for AGW, I am often referred to two surveys as ‘proof.’ The first is by Oreskes [2004] and the second by Kendall Zimmerman [2008].

Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and determined that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Thus the alarmist ‘majority’ claim was born. Very interesting, you may think. But let’s dig a little deeper with the able assistance of Dr. Benny Peiser, a world-renowned expert on ‘neo-catastrophism.’

After a thorough analysis of the study by Oreskes it turns out these claims are nothing other than a fraud. Dr. Peiser uncovered from the 928 abstracts that:

“just over a dozen explicitly endorse the “consensus,” while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.”

But what is even more shocking is that digging deeper using the respected ISI Web of Science database inputting the keywords “climate change” there were over 12,000 relevant science papers that Oreskes totally ignored.

Apart from Peiser’s [2005] debunking of Oreskes, another eminent climate researcher [Pielke 2005] also was prompt to expose Oreskes for cynically twisting the full diversity of scientific opinion.

Thus we can fairly conclude that the Oreskes paper is a cherry-picking exercise to enhance climate alarmist propaganda. Nonetheless, the warming lobby fought back and eventually came up with Kendall Zimmerman [2008] that sought to vindicate Oreskes by surveying 10,257 American Earth scientists using a database built from Keane and Martinez [2007].

But, interestingly, only 30.7% of scientists replied to Kendall Zimmerman and in their findings the study was forced to concede that only ‘5%’ of the 30% were actually ‘climate scientists.’ Ultimately, Kendall Zimmerman found a mere 75 pro-warmist climate scientists – yes, you read that right – 75 climate scientists from the 10,000 first approached gave support to the man made global warming thesis.

Pertinently, a question that now struck me as relevant is how many climate scientists actually are there?

On this particular issue, for the sake of time, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmists. If we look to that popular but flawed online resource, Wikipedia, they manage to scrape together the names only 61. Surely that can’t be right. But then, nothing much written about climate is ever reliable on Wikipedia.

But if we turn to an esteemed alarmist blog, ‘Rabett Run’ that tells us:

“the answer in the US is 13,746. However, there is no international register of climatologists so it’s very hard to provide a specific number… but if we look at foreign members we get a total of 19,340”

So, according to numbers put together by AGW advocates, the best face the doomsaying fraternity can put on this is the explicit support of a mere 75 climate scientists from almost 20,000 worldwide. I have to say, as a non-scientist, that this strikes me as the most damning statistic I have found in all the recent revelations about climate change fraud.

But then it’s worth turning the spotlight on exactly what this so called ‘elite’ of alarmist climatologists actually tell us about the specific risks of climate change. For simplicity, we shall take the pronouncements of the IPCC as our starting point.

In the IPCC’s 2007 Report the word ‘catastrophe’ or its conjugated derivatives appears no less than 338 times. Yet that apocalyptic word is conspicuous by its absence from the studies of Oreskes and Kendall Zimmerman. One can only wonder how miniscule would have been the response from the climate science community if the issue were about whether mankind’s impact on climate was potentially ‘catastrophic’ rather than merely ‘significant.’

Anyone adept in legal turns of phrase understands all too well that ‘significant’ is an amorphous and overly broad descriptor, a term knocked into a climate cocked hat when stood toe to toe with a full-blown ‘catastrophic’ calamity, a term so beloved by the IPCC. In fact, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary tells us just how powerful the word ‘catastrophe’ really is:

“a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin: a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth.”

Thus we have established there exists no proof of consensus among scientists of even ‘significant’ human climate impact let alone that ‘catastrophic’ kind. So let’s now turn our attentions to point (2.) that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion,’ although the statement now wields the rhetorical impact of a deflating balloon.

Here is where we begin to uncover the true extent of international politicisation of science. Again, let’s be consistent and again turn briefly to that organ of climate doom mongering, Wikipedia. Wikipedia can muster only 32 national science academies that have made a public statement on this matter. Stand this number alongside the fact there are currently 192 United Nations (UN) member states, each of which is a member of the United Nations General Assembly then we see that 159 nations, a vast majority, presumably don’t even rate the UN’s global warming issue serious enough to formally express a view.

But we are here now so let’s take a look at how powerful and compelling are those statements from the most earnest of climate doomsaying international academies. The European Academy of Sciences and Arts (EASA) says humans are “likely” to have some responsibility for climate change. No mention that of any impending catastrophic kind of warming. The Royal Society of New Zealand simply acknowledges mankind is impacting the climate and it may “become more costly” to adapt to change.

Meanwhile, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (ICAET) assert that global warming since the mid-20th century is “very likely” due to humans. While the Network of African Science Academies goes so far as to blame humans as the “main source” of climate change. Then there’s the American Association for the Advancement of Science, they tells us that global climate change caused by human activities is “occurring.”

Not once do these 32 international academies endorse the IPCC’s use of the word ‘catastrophe’ in any of the descriptions of the likely future outcomes. But if you want to gauge how pervasive the unsubstantiated climate catastrophe claims have become look for it on Google.

I surfed and got 1,430,000 results for ‘catastrophic climate change’ (0.34 seconds). So scare mongering is clearly alive and well outside the science laboratories of climatologists. Perhaps there are many other interested parties beyond that small clique in the scientific community looking to board the climate gravy train?

But more worrying to me and to many taxpayers is that we are seeing that Anglophone world leaders remain unrelenting but are ever more shrill in their please to voters to hand them a mandate for ever more swinging and harsh green taxation policies. The trusty British scientific establishment have circled the wagons to help in this endeavour. Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre leads the fight back trumpeting the warning of computer climate models that ‘catastrophe’ faces us in a mere 50 years.

Betts, like others on that sinking ship, clutch at a handful of scientific papers that have been the core of the alarmist movement. For the past decade junk scientists have been regularly citing the same 13 “core” or “foundation” research papers, from this specialised area of research defined by its co-citation cluster analysis. Yes, again it’s astonishing to note how small the sample numbers really are when you put climate science under the microscope. As proven by Thomson Reuters from its Essential Science Indicators (Research Fronts 2004-09), there are merely a hub of 13 papers that are thereafter cited by a further 534 important climate research papers – that’s the bedrock of this whole scam.

So what we are uncovering is again very much the same of what we found when debunking Oreskes [2004] and Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. We now have signposted for us a route map to unpick the credibility of the whole rambunctious climate circus.

Ironically, it’s all thanks to the concerted endeavours of a few Internet bloggers. What we are witnessing is a shrewd but tenuous worldwide thread of amateur climate sceptics usurping a far more egregious and monumentally funded professional minority in the greatest scientific debate of modern times. The true ‘catastrophe’ is that how could such a great green juggernaut of international economic policy advocates wielding a research budget estimated to exceed $50 billion be derailed by a bunch of retirees operating on a shoestring budget. Thus is the power of the Internet – it has finally come of age. The blogosphere has at last taken over the mantle of probing investigative journalism that was once the domain of the world’s mainstream media, an irascible crowd exposed as being very much in bed with the disparate interests of the green lobby.

The truth is now out there and although the total demise of the IPCC is yet to be happen, its chief snake oil peddlers are tottering badly. As I write, the American press, like the three ‘wise’ monkeys, is being roundly ridiculed for pretending to see, hear or speak no evil on the matter.

So far impatient sceptics have witnessed few climate conspirators falling on their swords, with the biggest to date being Yvo De Boer, the UN’s climate chief. But more will soon follow as sustaining this outrageous international Ponzi scheme becomes ever more absurd in the face of mounting lawsuits. As the unstoppable collapse continues many more heads are sure to roll, many more casualties in the unpredicted ‘catastrophe’ of the earthquake that shook the climate house of cards.

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

11 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tagged with:
Jul 22

Via Twitter, Michael Gratton (mjog) wonders: ‘…why is the act of denying global warming not considered to be a terrorist action?….’

By Editor alarmism, Twitter Comments Off on Via Twitter, Michael Gratton (mjog) wonders: ‘…why is the act of denying global warming not considered to be a terrorist action?….’

Michael Gratton_Twitter

Michael Gratton ought to meet Mark Colman (Kram), who recently asked via Twitter, “Is the idea of killing people to slow global warming too extreme?”.  These two nuts could easily find some common ground.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tagged with:
Jun 23

Milloy: ‘public relations firm advising Democrats on climate legislation says that global warming alarmism needs to be dropped’

By Editor Al Gore, alarmism, Global cooling Comments Off on Milloy: ‘public relations firm advising Democrats on climate legislation says that global warming alarmism needs to be dropped’

And that public relations firm will likely be sacked.

Steve Milloy writes:

A public relations firm advising Democrats on climate legislation says that global warming alarmism needs to be dropped.

According to a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, global warming should not be used as the “primary frame”:

Awareness about global warming is broad, and some in the public are seriously concerned about it. But almost no one in our groups expressed such concern; for most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform. So while it can be part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it.

Now you know why the skeptics were more than delighted to have Al Gore as the leading messenger for global warming alarmism.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tagged with:
preload preload preload