CFACT’s new billboard exposes global warming — in their own words

  • CO billboard ORG crop 2

In a moment of refreshing candor, the co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group III told the truth about the global warming scare.  The real point, according to Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, is to “redistribute the world’s wealth.”

What he said is no surprise to those of us who have been paying close attention to climate science and policy.

The surprise is not what he said, but that he said it at all.

This same Dr. Edenhofer recently advised the World Bank to divert funds away from helping developing nations advance and into global warming.  Keeping the poor, poor, is not sound economic policy.

CFACT is committed to educating the public and exposing global warming for what it truly is — a massive redistribution scheme.  This scheme is not designed to strengthen the U.S. economy, but to throttle it down.

One of our CFACT supporters finally had enough and stepped up to sponsor our latest billboard which enabled us to plaster Dr. Edenhofer’s words right outside Denver’s Coors Field (which seats over 50,000).

If you are one of the tens of thousands of people headed over to enjoy a Colorado Rockies game, with the help of CFACT, and one of our special donors, you’ll learn the truth about global warming on your way in –  A truth from the mouth of one of the UN’s arch-warmists themselves.

Coors field billboard

Click to like and share on Facebook

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • Lee Tennant

    Heaven forbid you should provide any context to the quote. As it stands it seems he’s saying that wealth redistribution would be an impact of climate policy. Which it would because it is designed to restructure economies from high emission to low emission. last I looked that had nothing to do with class and had massive economic opportunities for economies that made that change early. So unless you have something where he admits this is the *purpose* of climate policy, then you’re basically cherry picking and decontextualising to push your own agenda.

    • Nick697

      Hmm. China and India alone are building, or intend to build, 800 new coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years, making any action by the US, which would cost jobs and send even more business overseas, pointless. China passed the US in emissions 2 years ago. Other emerging giants like Brazil and Indonesia will be replicating China and India.
      .
      All of these countries are exempt from the provisions of the Kyoto Treaty, which is why George W. Bush refused to sign it. Cutting our CO2 emissions by the planned amount would be equivalent to p*ssing in the sea, but will be one more nail in the coffin of our tottering economy. And don’t tell me about all the new Green Jobs. Experience in other countries shows that for every new job, three existing ones disappear. The billboard is right. The whole purpose of IPCC – staffed mainly by politicians – is to prize billions of $ out of the US, something the lunatic in the White House is happy to do.
      .
      And that doesn’t even get into the main point, that manmade global warming is a myth, and the “solutions” to a nonexistent problem are dangerous one to nature and to us. Take windmills for example. According to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, over 10,000 are killed this way in this state alone. Bats? Nasty ugly things? Who cares?
      .
      You should care. Bats are by far the principal agents in keeping mosquito numbers down. If they are wiped out, we can expect a staggering increase in mosquito-born diseases like encephalitis. As if that were not enough, the same windmills kill over 570,000 birds annually, including protected species like the bald eagle, golden eagle, vulture and California condor. In one wind farm alone, Altamont Pass, CA., over ten thousand birds are slaughtered annually, most being federally protected raptors supposedly protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
      .
      And if the those who want a massive increase in these windmills have their way, the present slaughter will be nothing in comparison with what we might expect in 10 or 15 years. Where is PETA? The Audubon Society? Answer, they are run by loony lefties, so don’t wait for any protest from them.

      • K

        You scare me.
        I have seen enough proof to know that fracking is extremely harmful.
        Why your insistence we rely on fossil fuels at all? Green jobs, for every one gained 3 are lost? I doubt that. Never-the-less, jobs could be created in green energy IF WE developed any. We can run vehicles on hydro-batteries or solar power. We don’t. China MAY have surpassed the US in raping the planet, but the US has been guilty of it for far too long. Any valid points you make are deafened by the fact that you’d continue the reliance on fossil fuels period, by anyone. If the US ever decided to LEAD the planet IN A SAFE direction, all would follow. China, et al are merely following our example. DO NO HARM. Why are we not creating jobs that would heal, not continue in the jobs that cause so much harm? Do you believe COAL MINERS love their work? Do you think they would be much happier doing something SAFE that was not destructive? Why aren’t you an advocate for something better? Because China is not? Not only weak… but VERY FRIGHTENING.

        • Nick697

          There has not
          been one verifiable case of fracking affecting drinking water. The process
          drills thousands of feet below aquifers supplying drinking water. Some
          alarmists have shown the presence of methane in tap water, blaming it on
          fracking, despite the fact that the gas occurs naturally in tap water in some
          areas. It’s the fluoridation hoax all over again.

          Contrary to the
          oft-repeated statement that global warming is “the near unanimous opinion
          of climate scientists,” four years ago, over 30,000 of them worldwide signed a
          statement that global warming is either a) not occurring at all; or b) if it
          is, it is no more than the normal 1,500-year cycle that has gone on for
          millions of years, and is caused by fluctuations in the sun’s radiation, that
          mankind is neither a significant contributor to any global temperature changes,
          nor able to influence them in other than a minuscule and irrelevant amount.
          (And even if the US acted immediately to cease [impossible] emitting greenhouse
          gases, emissions from developing countries are expected to double by 2035, and
          triple by 2060.)

          Among the 30,000
          scientist were eminent climatologists, environmentalists, geologists,
          paleontologists and others with postgraduate degrees in related
          scientific disciplines, from every continent. A list is available online
          and I began to probe the qualifications and statements of a random
          sampling of the signatories. At “A” I found leading French
          scientist Claude Allegre, who was one of the first to try to warn people about
          global warming 20 years ago, but on looking into the facts and data now says:
          “Increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural
          phenomena.” In “B” I found, for example, Canadian Timothy
          Ball, PhD in climatology, who recently wrote an article Why No one
          Seems to be Listening to Scientists Who Claim That Global Warming is NOT Man
          made: “Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon
          Dioxide. This is in fact the greatest deception in the history of
          science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while
          creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific
          justification.”

          I stopped
          in fatigue, after scanning several hundred scientists, at the letter
          “C.” One of the “C’s,” atmospheric-science
          professor John Christie laughs at the panic: “Doomsday prophesies [like
          The World Will be Staving by 2000, as we were told in college, or The New Ice
          Age is Coming] grab headlines but prove to be false. Similar pronouncements
          about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too
          familiar.” Of course you can find supporters of “global climate
          change” (note how it’s no longer “global warming,” in view of no
          such thing having occurred for 15 years and counting, and cooling for 9).
          30 years ago you could find scores of scientists that disputed plate tectonics
          as a preposterous hypothesis.

          When a subject
          like this leaves the scientific, and enters the political sphere (and the highly
          profitable: close to $40 billion tax money has been spent since 1990 on global
          warming research), the opportunities and motives for skewing and distorting
          data, and selectively omitting contrary evidence, abound. Algore’s An
          Inconvenient Truth is a perfect example. You may be familiar with his
          false “hockey stick” image (if not, I suggest you look it up) and
          graphs that purported to show global warming following increases in CO2,
          whereas the absolute reverse is the case – warming increases production of CO2
          from increased microorganism populations in the seas, and accelerated
          degradation of dead plant materials. It also conveniently omits the Medieval
          Warming Period, when Earth was so warm that the Vikings raised sheep and cattle
          in Greenland and grew grapes in Newfoundland (which they called Vineland.)

          Global warming
          alarmists (many of them the same who predicted a New Ice Age in the 1970s)
          ignore, or evade, such awkward facts as the greatly increased CO2 production
          worldwide for 30 years after 1941, when heavy industry increased immensely for
          armaments in WWII, and for rebuilding and consumer goods like cars in the
          postwar boom in the Americas, Europe and Asia – while global temperatures
          simultaneously fell.

          While glaciers
          are indeed retreating in places – as part of the cyclical advance/retreat that
          has also been going on for millennia – they are advancing or thickening in
          others. The BBC reported two years ago that surveys
          showed Greenland’s ice is thickening in the interior (the places that people
          like Algore don’t film). The former VP’s film shows dramatic shots of massive
          chunks of ice breaking off glaciers, but this “calving” of icebergs
          is a normal, natural process, which has been creating our valleys for millions
          of years. The film doesn’t mention, of course, glaciers growing in Norway,
          New Zealand and even parts of the US. I spent some time in Alaska in 2009,
          and the US Forest Service was reporting that the Hubbard Glacier in the Tongass
          National Forest was advancing so rapidly that it threatened to close off a
          major fjord.

          Gore also shows
          dramatic time-lapse photos of ice disappearing from Mt. Kilimanjaro,
          conveniently failing to mention that this has been going on for hundreds of
          years. Australia’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated:
          “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic.”

          Re. CO2. of all the so-called greenhouse gases,
          atmospheric levels of this are minuscule, water wapor is much more prolific,
          and methane is some 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Methane is
          produced essentially irrelevant of man’s work, coming from the natural
          degradation of organic matter and, especially, the gaseous emissions of the
          world’s billions of wild and domesticated ruminants. Cow flatus alone far
          surpasses in greenhouse gas effect all that produced by all American cars,
          trucks, buses and locomotives.

          Unfortunately,
          NASA, together, as we now learn, the EPA, has succumbed to the same political
          pressure. This week it was revealed that an EPA scientist was threatened
          if he released to the press his report, which was quashed by management, that
          global warming was a myth, and eventually reassigned to a department where he
          would not be heard from again.

          Manmade warming fanatics repeatedly cite NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose director,
          James Hansen, asserted: “Nine of the ten warmest years in history occurred
          since 1995, with 1998 the warmest,” an assertion eagerly reported in the
          media. However, very quietly, NASA reversed itself, admitting Hansen’s
          statistics were wrong. NASA now admits: “Four of the top ten years of
          recorded high temperatures were actually back in the 1930s, with 1934 the
          warmest; and some of Dr. Hansen’s previously cited warm years (2000, 2002, 2003
          and 2004) were actually cooler than many years of more than a century ago.”

          Some more
          evidence of James Hansen’s duplicity has just come to light. In trying to
          prove that 2008 was warmer than previous years, he actually had the gall to use
          average temperature figures for September 2008 and compare them
          with previous Octobers. Nobody bothered to challenge this liar, but just
          accepted his data. Not, that is, until U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watts and climatologist Steve
          McIntyre did an audit.

          Caught out in the
          lie, the Goddard Institute at NASA, where Hansen
          works, juggled its books. To account for having carried the September
          figures over to October, it claimed to have discovered a new “hot
          spot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic
          sea ice 30% more extensive than the same time in October 2007.

          The Hadley
          Research Unit in Britain, the Christie Group at
          the U. of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. in California reported that
          “the earth cooled 0.7C (1.26F) in 2007, the fastest decline in temperature
          during the entire age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the earth
          was in 1930.”

          Geologists can
          prove global warming has been occurring here on this planet at regular 1,500
          year intervals for more than six million years. The most common natural causes are (1) solar variability, (2) minor
          changes in the earth’s orbit, and to a lesser degree (3) continental drift and the resultant mountain building,
          above and below sea levels, which cause volcanic eruptions.

          Did you see any
          of these in the press?

          Or this?

          Lord Monckton
          used to be scientific adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher. After schools
          in the UK showed Algore’s An Inconvenient Truth, several parents and
          Members of Parliament threatened to sue the (socialist) government for
          subjecting children to political indoctrination, complaining that their kids
          were panicking and weeping about dying polar bears, and having nightmares that
          they would soon be either drowned or roasted.

          Monckton
          assembled a panel of eminent climatologists who essentially destroyed Gore’s
          inaccurate and misleading movie.

          http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

          Since then, the
          BBC has screened two programs (one was “A Convenient Lie”) debunking Gore and
          his ilk. No TV station in the US will screen either.

          Gore,
          Hansen and most pro-warming speakers refuse to answer any questions on their
          assertions at press conferences or after they make their highly profitable
          speeches, and make sure that nobody with a contrary point of view can be heard. Republican
          members invited Lord Monckton, who flew from the UK at his own
          expense, to appear after Al Gore at the Energy and Commerce
          Committee hearing on climate. The Democrats refused to allow him to
          speak, so as not to embarrass Gore, whom they gave, of course, all the time he
          wanted. As Monckton said: “The Democrats have a lot to learn about the
          right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congressman Henry
          Waxman’s refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper,
          independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear.” Waxman
          knew, of course, that the UK High Court condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as
          “materially, seriously, serially inaccurate. The Armageddon scenario that
          he depicts is not based on any scientific view.”

          I do not advocate
          the muzzling of science. I deplore and decry the subjugation of science
          to politics, and the muzzling of scientists who use facts to attempt to show
          that the Emperor Has No Clothes. To do so is to be called a “holocaust
          denier, a racist” (Algore and others), a “flat-earthist,” to be threatened,
          warned to shut up or else, be reassigned or even lose their livelihoods.

          • jcarls

            ” four years ago, over 30,000 of them worldwide signed a
            statement ”

            If you are talking about the Oregon Petition, it’s been known to be a meaningless fraud for years.

            • Nick697

              Cite your sources …… of course you can’t. You’re just parroting the bunk from the manmade global warming nuts. How about the 700 scientists around the world who sent a report to Congress debunking AGW;

              http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

              http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

              • jcarls

                700 scientists does not equal 700 climatologists. This report can be ignored, especially with “Mark Morano” prominently displayed on the first page. There is in fact only a tiny number of climatologists who actually doubt the consensus of the rest about the research. The consensus is not about absolute proven truth, but the fact real world observations, from HUNDREDS of scientists and THOUSANDS of sources, are falling well within the predicted outcomes from the models.

                • http://www.cfact.org/ Craig Rucker

                  So only climate computer modelers get a say? Meteorologists, physicists, geologists, observational climatologists, etc. know the scientific method when they see it and are appalled when it is violated by warming researchers adjusting the facts to fit their conclusions.

                  • http://www.cfact.org/ Craig Rucker

                    When Freeman Dyson, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, tells us he places no confidence in the climate models because they are “full of fudge factors,” attention must be paid.

                    • jcarls

                      Yes, Dyson doesn’t put as much faith in mathmatical models as some (despite the fact that actual temperature measurements fall within the confidence bands of those same models), but let’s DO pay attention to what Dyson actually says, but with just a bit more detail:

                      “Everyone agrees that the climate is changing, but there are violently diverging opinions about the causes of change, about the consequences of change, and about possible remedies. ”

                      “I will discuss the global warming problem in detail because it is interesting, even though its importance is exaggerated. One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. ”

                      “Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have accurate measurements of sea level going back two hundred years. We observe a steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last fifty years.”

                      In all cases, he follows these quotes with a discussion of how it is hard to pin down exact causes or discusses possible alternate solutions whose achievability he admits he doesn’t know. Dyson’s main point is that he thinks the earth is more resilient and, one supposes, that he doesn’t think there is a triggering point at which carbon dioxide will overwhelm the natural processes. Yet, there is evidence that there may be such a point, involving the amount of CO2 the ocean can retain above a specific temperature.

                      He also makes a statement that is surprising in how obviously mistaken it is: “It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” Well, the latter part of that might be true if it weren’t for the fact that climatologists are indeed measuring what is happening in the swamps and the clouds—and in ice cores and ocean monitors and all the rest. He is clearly imagining a less electronic world in which this wasn’t possible.

                      However, AT NO POINT does he claim that man-made global warming is a fraud; instead, he admits it is happening. So I would indeed suggest that attention be paid to him, instead of dishonestly misusing his words out of context: http://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society

                • Nick697

                  So “This report can be ignored” can it? Only by people who have, as one of the scientists said: “Drunk the Al Gore KoolAid.” Here is a breakdown of the report and a list of the scientists, many or most climatologists or PhDs in associated sciences like meteorology. This was from 3 years ago, and many more have joined since, possibly noting that there has been NO measurable global warming for nearly 17 years:
                  .
                  Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.
                  .
                  The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.
                  .
                  The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.
                  .
                  Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [ See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]
                  .
                  “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros, of the UK Natural History Museum, specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.
                  .
                  Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lamented the current fears over global warming.
                  .
                  “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.
                  .
                  ‘Could turn the climate change world upside down’
                  The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. “I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.
                  .
                  Tsonis further added: “The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” [ See also: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 ]
                  .
                  Climate ‘primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms’
                  Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,” Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.
                  .
                  Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.
                  .
                  Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature, not mankind is ruling the climate. “I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming,” Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
                  .
                  UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.
                  .
                  “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.
                  .
                  Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University who has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books, ridiculed man-made climate claims. “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology,” Tipler wrote on December 22, 2008.
                  .
                  Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, says the international promotion of man-made global warming fears are nearing their end. (Note: Bellamy was in the original 2007 U.S. Senate report.] “The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Bellamy, who used to believe in man-made warming, declared on November 5, 2008.
                  .
                  ‘Journalistic malpractice’
                  Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, squarely blames the media for promoting unfounded climate fears. “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical,” Chapman wrote on January 13, 2009.
                  .
                  “Scientists across the globe are catching on — global warming is not real science. There is a sucker born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of P.T. Barnum,” Chemist Max S. Strozier declared on December 22, 2009 in an email to the minority staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Strozier spent 26 years specializing in chemical laboratory analysis, served as a U.S. Department of Defense aerospace chemist and is a former lecturer at San Jose State University and the University of Texas.
                  .
                  Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report of 700 plus scientists featuring the 59 additional scientists:
                  Full Text of the 59 additional scientists’ remarks begins on page 70 of report:
                  .
                  The new scientific report “directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” – Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”
                  .
                  “I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” – Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.
                  .
                  “I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” – Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.
                  .
                  “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” – Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.
                  .

                  • Nick697

                    Part 2:

                    “Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” – Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.”
                    .
                    “The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” – Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA’s top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world’s first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.
                    .
                    Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… “I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” – Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”
                    .
                    “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” – Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.
                    .
                    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
                    .
                    “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” – Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.
                    .
                    “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” – Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
                    .
                    “If global cooling will come soon — scientists will lose trust .” – Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.
                    .
                    “Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” – Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.
                    .
                    “The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” – Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.
                    .
                    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” – Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.
                    .
                    “I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.
                    .
                    “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” – Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers
                    .
                    “It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” – Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.
                    .
                    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” – Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
                    .
                    “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” – Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
                    .
                    “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” – Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.
                    .
                    “My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end… The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” – Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department
                    .
                    “There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” – Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee. Other scientists added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report since its initial December 11, 2009 release include the following:
                    .
                    Full Text of the 59 additional scienists’ remarks begins on page 70 of report. Here is a list of the scientists:
                    Geologist Dr. Lloyd C. Furer, a past Associate Scientist and Visiting Professor at Indiana University who served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Air Force and has authored more than 35 publications; Physicist and environmental activist John Droz, Jr., who holds a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University; Geologist Dr. A. Neil Hutton, former District Geologist for Northwest Territories and the Arctic Islands and former Assistant Chief Geologist for the Western Canadian Basin; Professional Geologist Gary Walker, a member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists; Ohio’s NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl who was the youngest person to be granted the American Metrological (AMS) Seal of Approval; Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen; Geologist Allan Shepard, former Chief Geologist for Amoco International and member of the Association of Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta; Physicist Gary M. Hoover, a consultant with research and operational experience in atmospheric energy absorption, nuclear reactor operations and exploration geophysics; Meteorologist Scott Sumner of North Carolina; Professor Dr. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, an adjunct professor at the School of International Service at American University and a former teacher of quantitative research methods; Chemical Process Control Engineer Dr. Pierre R Latour, who holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering and has published more than 70 publications and managed NASA’s Apollo Docking Simulator development; Terry Jackson of the Institute of Physics in London, the founder of the Energy Group, and a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years; Certified consulting meteorologist Anthony J. Sadar, co-author of Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry; Physicist Dr. Paul Drallos, who worked as a Post Doc at Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque and at the University of Toledo, formed Plasma Dynamics Corporation, a small research company that specializes in plasma display technology and computer simulation; Surface Chemist Dr. Mark Rose Head of Environmental Quality at Qatar Petroleum who has generated two patents and developed the largest Purified Wet Acid Plant in the world; Geologist Dr. Seymour Merrin, a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a research scientist; Environmental Chemist Jim Nibeck, who also worked in the biomedical research industry, wrote a 2008 paper on climate titled “Doubt About Anthropogenic Global Warming”; Physicist Jerome Hudson who studies focused on aperture synthesis and optics; Certified Consulting Meteorologist Mike Smith, the CEO of WeatherData Services of Wichita Kansas; Environmental Engineer James A. Haigh, PE, a Certified Plant Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer of 36 years who has assisted in the design of Class III Nuclear Valves for Nuclear Power Plants; Meteorologist Tony Pann of WUSA 9 in Washington DC, holds the American Meteorological Seal of Approval; Biologist and Biochemist Dr. John Reinhard, a member of the American Chemical Society who has published 76 papers and currently a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry; Engineer Alan Cheetham has 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics and runs the skeptical website “Global Warming Science”; Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona; CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society; Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program; Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau; MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific; Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers; German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist; Professor Luigi Mariani of the Agrometeorological Research Group, Dept. of Crop Science at the University of Milan, has authored or co-authored more than 50 peer-reviewed studies and other scientific reports; Miroslav Kutilek, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science and Soil Physics at Czech Technical University in Prague who specialized in paleoclimatology of soil; Coastal Engineer Cyril Galvin, member of the American Geophysical Union; Nuclear Chemist Gary L. Troyer has worked as an analytical chemist and was a Fellow Scientist at the Westinghouse Hanford Company; and Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers.

                  • jcarls

                    Yes, the report can be ignored and your own quotes prove it: a mish-mash of “refutations” of claims that climatologists have not made and appeals to authority that reference scientists who have credibility in their own fields but not in climate science.

                    “many or most climatologists or PhDs in associated sciences like meteorology.” This is a flat lie disguised in clever wording. Most are NOT climatologists, and as for meterologists, they have a much stronger link to their local views of the weather and their own personal politics than they have to actual climate science.

                    The kicker: “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice” You cannot find a single climatologist making a ludicrous claim like that. It’s stupid on the face of it, yet THAT is a straw man you choose to highlight — just another example of the media looking to bump their readership? The media did the same thing when there were competing theories of both warming and cooling in the 70′s, choosing to hype cooling because I suppose it sounded scarier. In fact, the efforts to reduce ozone depletion took care of the danger of cooling and the continuous warming is what actually occurred.

                    The simple fact is that the report is not credible; it was produced by the Republican party as propaganda: nothing more than a compilation, by lobbyists for the carbon-based energy industry, of out-of-context, out-of-date or misinformed quotes or, to be charitable, reasonable doubts that climatologists would have no problem with. It was not “sent” by “700 scientists around the world … to Congress.” There is no need to prove that the consensus of climatologists is not fixed, absolute proof, because none of them are making that claim. They are counting the cards and telling us what the odds are.

        • Nick697

          You say you “have seen enough proof to know that fracking is extremely harmful.” What proof? Cite your sources. Of course you can’s; you just listen to loony anti-fracking extremists. Here in Pennsylvania we have possibly the largest Have a look at my post in answer to jcarls above.
          .
          “LEAD IN A SAFE direction, all would follow?” Whatever you’re smoking, I want some of it. The idea that if we continue to suppress the oil and gas industries and users, and somehow magically replace them with “green” energy, India, China and the emerging Third-World countries like Indonesia, Brazil etc. would follow suit is stupid, liberal rubbish, similar to “if we get rid of our nukes, Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran would also. (It is also a totally impossible and stupid proposition in any case – one example; to produce less than half our present electricity usage would require solar panel farms the size of Massachusetts – and even THEN we would have to have fossil-fuel plants running during night and cloudy condition.)
          .
          Electric vehicles? Like the TESLAs and VOLTs, that keep catching fire? And the average electric/battery car, today, gets almost exactly the same range as its counterparts at the start of the last century – about 70 miles (and far less when the heater, or A/C, is used. Add lights, and you’re looking at more like 50 miles. And then what do you do?) And battery-powered ships, trains, trucks and airliners? Again, please give up the hookah for your health’s sake. Solar-panel-driven cars? The average compact sedan would need panels the size of a tennis court – on a sunny day. Cloudy? Night-time? Giggle.
          .
          Something to consider. The European Union just calculated the relative costs for electricity from different energy sources:
          Nuclear – 4c per kw/hour
          Coal – the same
          Natural gas – 5c (but falling. And in the US the cost of natural gas has fallen by 30-45% since fracking)
          Wind – 13c
          Biomass – 16c
          SOLAR ……………….56c !!!

      • jcarls

        “China and India alone are building, or intend to build, 800 new coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years”

        China is choking to death on its own noxious output. How long do you really think that will go on? In the meantime, they are outspending us on research into solar technology by a wide margin, while Republicans continue to believe that the “market” will magically produce expensive, bleeding edge research in time for the U.S. to become a leader in future energy technology. Just like it put a man on the moon and robots on Mars.

        • Nick697

          China is not “choking to death.” Some cities certainly are, but that is in a country of 3.7 million sq. miles. Go and look at my post again – China and India alone are building, or planning 800 new coal-fired power plants, so all the closing of US plants by the loony extremists at the EPA will have the same effect on global pollution as p*ssing in the Pacific.
          .
          Solar technology? Glad you mentioned that. Remember Obozo’s endless praise of projects like Solyndra, his squandering billions of out tax dollars on these companies in return for receiving millions in campaign funds – then us watching them close one by one as virtually all the solar panels being put up in this country are being made in China? Same with wind turbines.
          .
          The whole concept of “free energy” from the sun or the wind is one giant hoax. You have to put solar panels where the sun shines a maximum, meaning desert areas in Arizona etc. One problem; the panels’ electrical output diminishes from day one, as dust, sand and bird poop accumulate. So they have to be washed. But there is no water in the desert (that’s why they’re called deserts). So you would have to bring millions of gallons of water in by tanker, and employ thousands of people to wash the panels. Some “free” energy.”
          .
          Both solar and wind energy have other, inescapable and serious drawbacks: When the sun don’t shine, like at night, there is zero output from panels; when the wind don’t blow, ditto from windmills. So standby turbine generators (using fossil fuel) have to be constantly running, and constantly speeding up and slowing to idle to make up for the varying output from windmills and the zero output from panels overnight. This constant speed changing is very inefficient and wasteful of energy.
          .
          Oh, and while conventional power stations can be built right where the power is needed (in or near major cities), solar and wind farms have to be sited where demand is low or nonexistent, necessitating hundreds of billions of dollars in new transmission lines, transformers and other infrastructure, and the personnel to maintain them.
          .
          Funny you should mention putting a man on the moon. In 2008, needing union votes for his election, Obozo, addressing a crowd of miners in W. Va. said: “We put a man on the moon in nine years in the 1960s, so don’t tell me we can’t develop clean coal technology.” The next year, the union vote and election safely in his pocket, he declared war on the coal industry.
          .
          Manmade global warming is a myth, a hoax. This country has more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East. Exploiting this, coupled with imports via the Keystone Pipeline blocked by the lunatic in the White House, we could be energy independent in 5 years. Instead, because of Obozo and his environmental crazies in the EPA, we will continue to squander billions of dollars annually buying oil from countries that hate us, and helping to fund more 9/11s.
          .
          By the way, what the hell is “bleeding edge technology”?

          • jcarls

            “watching them close one by one as virtually all the solar panels being put up in this country are being made in China?”

            Because the technology changed and the process the solar panel companies were planning to make was replaced by one on which the Chinese had a jump start. Since you don’t seem too informed, this is an example of “bleeding edge” technology: new technology in a fast-changing field that represents a high risk to payoff. It’s the type of development that needs government assistance because of the risks but has a long term payoff. One example is the space industry, which as a side-effect begat the microcomputer industry, and did so in a much faster time-frame than private business by itself could have done.

            So you’ve identified a problem with Third World countries trying to burn fossil fuels in the fact of the clear threat from global warming. That is all the more reason for us to fast-track the development of non-carbon energy production, because like all new technology, it will filter down to the rest of the planet.

            “When the sun don’t shine, like at night, there is zero output from panels; when the wind don’t blow, ditto from windmills. ”

            So,
            you’ve apparently never heard of batteries? There are new thin-film
            batteries that will be coming on line in the next few years, along with
            all sorts of other possilibities like the use of pressure-based
            deepwater storage. All we have to do is not listen the people who are
            spreading lies about global warming and the potential of new technology.

            “The whole concept of “free energy” from the sun or the wind is one giant hoax. ”

            A piece of advice: Making obviously lunatic statements like that won’t help your already low credibility. No one is claiming that it will be free to develop renewable energy technology, but somehow you think that finding a way to harness energy that literally “falls from the sky” is so far-fetched that it is not worth even trying. Wow. How much do the oil coal industries pay you, anyway?

            “Manmade global warming is a myth, a hoax. ”

            The kind of person who believes this should not be allowed anywhere near a national policy. Go look for your conspiracy theories among the fairies and unicorns.

            • Nick697

              “So, you’ve apparently never heard of batteries? There are new thin-film batteries that will be coming on line in the next few years, along with all sorts of other possilibities like the use of pressure-based deepwater storage.”
              .
              Batteries? FYI, batteries store and release DC. Power lines transmit AC. Converting DC to AC on a massive scale to make even a dent in the country’s electrical usage would take hundreds of billions of dollars, and every stage in converting DC to AC loses some 20% of the energy to heat. potential energy storage by deepwater or elevated reservoir is another scheme that looks great in theory, but can only supply a fraction of the standby energy produced by gas turbines for when neither solar or wind turbines are operating. And, like the DC to AC problem, they also consume energy (you use it to pump the water, and only recover 80% when you reverse the process.) Then there’s the massive resources of expensive rare elements needed, many coming from highly unstable parts of the world.
              .
              “somehow you think that finding a way to harness energy that literally “falls from the sky” is so far-fetched that it is not worth even trying. Wow. How much do the oil coal industries pay you, anyway?”
              .
              This from someone accusing me of a “lunatic statement”? :)Fact after unpleasant fact emerges each year to prove that the whole concept is a dream, in line with low-temperature fusion. That crackpot idea had the same kind of enthusiasts as wind and solar do now. It was worth trying, has been tried, and has proved to be a dead-end.
              .
              President Obama and environmentalists often say America should follow Europe’s lead on energy, climate and economic matters. Recent events suggest that we should listen more attentively to the Europeans. Three brutal winters have awakened Europe to the fact that global temperatures stopped rising in 1998 – and that frigid days and nights pose far graver dangers to the elderly and poor than warm weather and moderate global warming. Germany and the Netherlands were gripped by near-record low winters. People suffered frostbite and some froze to death in Poland and Russia.
              .
              One year after its Meteorological Office said the 2009-10 winter was the coldest in three decades, Britain endured its coldest December-January since 1683. Because the United Kingdom’s ultra green energy policies have driven heating costs into the stratosphere, British pensioners rode buses or spent all day in libraries to stay warm, then shivered all night in their apartments. Tens of thousands risked hypothermia, trying to control costs by bundling up and turning the heat down or off. Many died.
              .
              This isn’t proof that the world is entering a global cooling cycle, but the absence of sunspots is the most prolonged in a century, and scientists say the reduced solar activity is reminiscent of the Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when the Northern Hemisphere suffered through the
              coldest weather, worst storms and shortest growing seasons of the Little Ice Age.
              .
              The frigid weather, freezing families, record budget deficits, soaring unemployment – and complete failure of global
              warming computer models to predict anything other than “a warmer than normal winter” – have caused a meltdown in Europe’s longstanding climate and energy policies. In fact, many Europeans increasingly recognize that businesses,
              hospitals and especially poor families absolutely need reliable, affordable energy – which wind and solar cannot provide.
              .
              The British government is looking into cutting subsidies, feed-in tariffs and other incentives for solar projects, to prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. Wind turbines, small hydroelectric plants and biomass projects are also on the block, as the government attempts to revive the UK economy, raise its
              competitiveness, radically reduce rising debt burdens, and chart a more economically and politically realistic course. United Kingdom manufacturers say “green energy” policies and increased penalties for using fossil fuels are raising their costs to intolerable levels, especially for energy-intensive
              industries. Manufacturing is “reaching a tipping point,” they say, “where companies that are internationally mobile will say ‘enough is enough,’” and simply move to Asia. Millions of jobs are on the line.
              .
              The Netherlands is likewise reducing its renewable energy targets and slashing wind and solar subsidies. More shocking, even in the wake of Fukushima, the Dutch are talking of approving their first new nuclear power plant in 40 years, because they can no longer afford to pay exorbitant fees for minimal amounts of renewable electricity (that is well
              below theoretically “rated” or “capacity” output). Poland is racing to develop shale gas, using hydraulic fracturing methods developed by American companies to unlock trillions of cubic feet of methane for its homes and factories.
              Exploratory drilling is also underway, or about to begin, in Britain, Germany and other countries, as engineers evaluate the extent and economics of developing their own vast shale gas deposits.
              .
              In Slovakia, the government stopped issuing solar licenses barely six months after launching its program. After
              unaffordable subsidies were sharply reduced, new solar installations in the Czech Republic fell 76% (from 2800 MW in 2009 to 400 MW in 2010); in Spain they plummeted 98% (from 2800 MW to 69 MW between 2008 and 2009). Private
              investments in these government-supported programs also cratered. France and other countries are taking similar steps, while also expanding coal-based electricity, to replace nuclear. “Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy, as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback,” London Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly observed. “Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost asmany jobs as it creates.” Or worse.
              .
              A new report from Scotland found that renewable energy kills 3.7 traditional jobs for every “green” job it creates. Wind power mandates also cost British energy consumers an extra $2.8 billion in higher electricity costs in 2009-2011. Rebellion is in the air, and belief in dangerous manmade global warming has plummeted. European Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger put it bluntly. “If we go alone to 30% [renewable energy],” he said, “you will have a faster process of de-industrialization in Europe. We need industry, and industry means CO2 emissions.” Tougher climate and renewable targets will force industries to move to Asia, he added, and steel will likely be one of the first casualties. Europe can no longer afford to “prop up” renewable energy industries.
              .
              However, despite these changes in the Europe he extols so often, President Obama says this is America’s “Sputnik
              moment.” He wants the United States to “invest” in “the Apollo projects of our time” – spending countless billions of additional taxpayer dollars to “stimulate” renewable energy, high-speed rail, climate change “prevention” and other projects. His April 13 2012 budget speech reiterated this commitment. This is precisely the kind of business-as-usual our nation can no longer afford: politicians and bureaucrats deciding which energy technologies, industries and
              companies win – and which ones lose – on the basis of politics, rather than science, economics or technology.
              .
              It is time to follow Europe’s lead. We may not be able to do anything about the weather or climate. But we can, and must,
              implement policies that ensure we have the technology and money to adapt to whatever climate and weather changes might come. Developing America’s vast domestic oil, natural gas, coal and shale gas deposits will generate millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in critically needed royalty and tax revenue. We must ensure that our energy policies generate revenues and create jobs – instead of requiring constant taxpayer subsidies and destroying two to four traditional jobs for every “green” job that government “creates.” We need to do that, and can do it without hurting the environmental values we all cherish. Any policies that shackle our ability to follow this new Europe-advised course will severely harm our nation’s future – and shackle blue-collar jobs, poor families and minority opportunities worst of all.

              • jcarls

                ” FYI, batteries store and release DC. Power lines transmit AC.”

                Nothing you wrote here or in the following rant proves that new technologies to store energy are not part of the solution to the problems caused by burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants, especially standardized modular ones that don’t have the inherent problems of the older “built-to-spec” versions, are part of the solution, but only in the shorter term of the next few decades.

                “This is precisely the kind of business-as-usual our nation can no longer afford: politicians and bureaucrats deciding which energy technologies, industries and companies win – and which ones lose – on the basis of politics, rather than science, economics or technology.”

                And yet, it was precisely the use of government funding to get past the “bleeding edge” costs of efforts like the Apollo program that led to incredible new developments in private industry. The “you can’t determine winners and losers” argument is nothing but the whining of pessimists, because what the government is ACTUALLY doing is planting the seeds of the future, like governments have been doing for a thousand years. Private industry has ALWAYS depended on the government of the time to do some of the initial heavy lifting.

                ” ‘Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy, as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback,’ London Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly observed. ‘Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost asmany jobs as it creates.’ ”

                By including this you’ve unwittingly undermined your own argument and I didn’t even need to provide links. There is no link between the NEED to invest in alternative energy (an undeniable requirement for the future) and the affects of the now-discredited austerity policies that made Europe’s financial situation worse. It is “apples to oranges” to compare what needs to be done in the short term to promote consumer demand and what needs to be invested to avert future energy catastrophes.

                Well, there is one link: the conservative positions on both energy policy and on Europe’s recession woes are both completely wrong.

    • TruthInAction48

      Yeah? So? Kinda like the silliness happening with the man-made global warming (mmgw) “models.” You “cherry pick” by refusing to recognize the politics of the mmgw crowd. Methinks, there is a good chance you are part of that group.

    • roberta4343

      wealth redistribution is theft, just a nice way of saying it, it has little to do with the enviorment and everything to do with putting everyone into poverty (impoverished people are easier to control have shorter life spans and have no power over their own lives) I have to ask you did you ever see the rockerfellers the presidents the rothschilds or anyone of wealth show by example they believe global warming is true and have decided to give up their wealth (since aren’t they jsut as guilty as everyone else since they made their wealth by polluting the enviorment too)and throw their lot in with the rest of us and live in their stack andpackum houses they are trying to build and push everyone else off the grid and out of the country side? I never have they are liars and they have no intentions of giving up their wealth, right there is reason enough to not trust them at all nor do I want them making legal decisions over anyone else what they should or should not have or be doing. they are more guilty then the average folk in causing harm to the people of the world including the thrid world nations(spending trillions on bank bailouts, wars, etc), they have done nothing to mitgate their poverty, but have made it worse by their controls over the govs, and they have caused more harm by their instigating wars between nations funding both sides and frankly making a pure nusiance out of themselves so if you want to trust such people I feel sorry for you, they do not care about you.

      • jcarls

        “wealth redistribution is theft, just a nice way of saying it, ”

        Nonsense. Theft is enriching your country by spreading the unpaid costs of your development across the atmosphere of every country on the planet. What Edenhofer was actually talking about was the socialization of costs for which the most developed nations have yet to be held fully accountable. In other words, not wealth redistribution but wealth recovery.

        • roberta4343

          accountable for what? can you name something specific that requires payment to people in other parts of the world? you need to name the specific harm done and who the victims are, in a court of law you need a plantiff and defendant and counsel and specific charges in order to receive compesation, and the victims must be compensated by the wrong doers, so who are the victims here and who are the wrong doers nad where is the court decision that says so and so must pay someone or a group of someone? and long with the plantiff proof of harm by certain parties,

          • jcarls

            If it requires all that, then you have nothing to worry about and the billboard is just hysterical BS, right? But I note that nothing you said contradicts the basic truth: the cost of 1st world prosperity has been spread across the entire planet to nations that have not benefited from it. That’s the point of what Edenhofer said. You can argue that it will be hard to give the 3rd world what they are due for the cavalier use of their breathable air and preventing them from burning all the fossil fuels they want, but you can’t refute that it has happened.

            • http://www.cfact.org/ Craig Rucker

              The developing world has not benefited from the developed world’s economy and opening their markets to them? Hogwash.

              • jcarls

                I didn’t say that. The point is that we must change the standard operating procedure for new development in order to prevent steadily more violent weather, radical displacement of seasonal weather patterns that various countries depend on, loss of land to rising sea levels and all the things that will be happening as the world keeps warming. Because of that, the 3rd world is going to be penalized after the 1st world has pumped carbon into the air without taking responsibility for the costs. This has to be accounted for when helping fund 3rd world development.

                • Nick697

                  Yet again, speculation based on a presupposition and ignoring awkward facts. The greatest surge in manmade CO2 (plus methane, ethane, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and many more so-called greenhouses gases) occurred from 1940, as the industrialized world experienced an explosive growth in (95% coal-fired) heavy industry, first for armaments in WWII, then infrastructure and industrial rebuilding and consumer durables (cars, refrigerators etc.) in the post war boom. And for 30 years – 1940-70, global temperatures went down.
                  .
                  Global warming alarmists keep pointing to the same cherry-picked “facts,” such as the decrease in Arctic ice in 2012. They don’t report the 60% growth in 2013, to an area half the size of Europe. Or that Antarctic ice is at a record volume (width + depth.) Where do they report that GLOBAL sea ice is now the greatest it has been in 14 years, and the 3rd-greatest in history?
                  (Sound of crickets.)

                  • jcarls

                    “And for 30 years – 1940-70, global temperatures went down.”

                    You are talking about a completely separate affect that peaked just before 1940 and has not had much effect since then:

                    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/37/14877.full?sid=e3397167-77d4-4245-aaf5-a199357a8ca0

                    “They don’t report the 60% growth in 2013, to an area half the size of Europe…blah blah blah…”

                    Yes,
                    they do. Your problem is that not only are you simply uninformed about what research is actually out there, it is you who are cherry-picking facts in
                    an attempt to advance the interests of your johns, not explore the truth. Scientists have addressed this already and contrary to your claims, these statistics prove that the science is complex, NOT that the science is wrong:

                    http://theconversation.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing-19605

                    “Obozo’s mantra of “spread the wealth,” as he lectured Joe the Plumber”

                    You are referring to a deliberate distortion of what Obama said to a guy who distorted his own credentials and was used as a pet “victim” by the Republican presidential campaign. If you can’t keep up with what has already been debunked about Republican propaganda, you don’t have a chance at being credible.

                    • Nick697

                      Let me see; so far you “We’re all going to be roasted/drowned” Chicken Littles have called me in the pay of the oil industry, a propagandist for the coal industry, and also for the Republicans. One sure sign that someone’s arguments are weak is when they start with ad hominem attacks.
                      .
                      Of course the science is complex. The problem is that the IPCC, the Climategate liars, Algore, and the rest – especially those making millions of dollars peddling this rubbish non-science, and those receiving government (i.e. tax) grants to prove manmade global warming – put forward nothing but propaganda, faked or skewed data and the kind of simple slogans that the uninformed public can understand. It’s the global warming equivalent of “Republicans want to push grannie off a cliff,” and “The Republican war on women.” Or “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
                      .
                      Pictures of polar bears on ice floes – “ooh, kids, look. He’s going to drown!” [Uh, polar bears swim up to 60 miles in search of food. Their numbers are increasing rapidly as hunting has been decreased.]
                      .
                      “Look at the glaciers falling into the sea. They’re meltiiiiiing!” [Um, glaciers have been doing that for millions of years. It's called calving. They expand and contract. At one time they reached as far south as Central Park, NY, where the boulders they rolled along remain.]
                      .
                      “The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding.” [As it has been doing for several hundred years - before there were SUVs or power stations.]
                      .
                      “The sea is rising and will soon engulf low-lying islands and coastal areas.” [No it isn’t, and won’t. If CO2 from human activity was causing this, we would have expected to see a sharp rise after 1950, when atmospheric CO2 began to rise quickly. By contrast, sea level rise rates along the Atlantic coast have slowed since 1950.
                      .
                      http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11555/Claim-Global-warming-alert-as-sea-level-rise-said-to-be-fastest-rate-for-2100-years
                      .
                      The IPCC, Mann, NASA, Hansen, Algore et al have been throwing faked data and phony factoids around for 20 years, while the earth goes on its way without warming up. You want to actually STUDY the claims in a forensic manner? Try this, although I doubt that your attention span is up to it. Like your kind, you may read a line or two and then delete it, muttering “don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.”
                      .
                      Lawyers? What do they know about climate? Not much. But they do know how to cross-examine purported “evidence” and find its flaws, errors and misconceptions:
                      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%e2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/

                    • jcarls

                      “The problem is that the IPCC, the Climategate liars, Algore, and the rest – especially those making millions of dollars peddling this rubbish non-science, and those receiving government (i.e. tax) grants to prove manmade global warming – put forward nothing but propaganda, faked or
                      skewed data ”

                      So you think that my pointing out that the climate denial industry is funded both visibly and secretly by the carbon fuel industry is an “ad hominem attack” and then you make ludicrously dishonest claims about climate researchers. Projecting much? I notice you didn’t deny that you are being funded by corporate interests.

                      “If CO2 from human activity was causing this, we would have expected to see a sharp rise after 1950, when atmospheric CO2 began to rise quickly.” Why? All the results of global warming are modified by the ebb and flow of other natural cycles. This is why the temperature data appears as an upward stair step pattern, not a smooth curve.

                      “By contrast, sea level rise rates along the Atlantic coast have slowed since 1950.”

                      Sorry, no. There was a major dip between approximately 1980 and 1993 of overall seal levels, which gives dishonest lobbyists a range to cherry pick. However, the trend is not only clearly rising, but satellite measurements now available put the rise at the UPPER limit of the IPCC projections. The rise rates along the Atlantic coast are NOT global trends, no matter what they do.

                      “The IPCC, Mann, NASA, Hansen, Algore et al have been throwing faked data and phony factoids around for 20 years, while the earth goes on its way without warming up.”

                      Now you are simply lying.

                      “Lawyers? What do they know about climate? Not much. ”

                      Yes, but even so, this paper is amusing. It expends a lot of effort to convince people that climate science is inexact (which we know) but further, to convince them that the occasional misfire of a climate model or the number of things that cannot be known for sure means that we should do NOTHING.

                      This is exactly equivalent to a teenager watching a three-year-old child play with a Glock 19 and arguing that there is no need to do anything about it because it MIGHT not have a round in the chamber. Did the three-year-old kill himself? Did he shoot the teenager? Would either question matter if an adult came in the room and instantly took the gun away?

                      Sorry, but the adults in the room are telling you what we need to be doing. It’s your fault if you ignore us.

                    • Nick697

                      Ah, “ebb and flow” and all the Anthropogenic Global Warming [correction: after a series of record cold winters and a record cold Antarctic summer, now it's Climate Change] buzz words, and again with the paranoia, this time “being funded by corporate interests.” FYI, I’m a 77-year-old retired MSc (British abbreviation, equivalent to a US MS) scientist. My training emphasized something you clearly don’t undrestand, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. To save you from having to look the words up, I’ll explain.
                      .
                      Both attempt to explain natural phenomena. A theory – e.g. the atomic theory – is an assaertion that has stood the test of time, and is supported by “falsifyable” (look it up) facts and data. Attempts to disprove the atomic theory are based on non-facts, and are easily disproved. A hypothesis is a fancier name for a guess; something not supported by falsifyable facts and data. Religous faith is an example of a hypothesis; absent falsifyable facts it requires faith, and its adherents sneer at, attack, distort and try to suppress any facts that show their faith to be absurd. Anthopogenic Global Warming/Climate Change is also a hypothesis, for the same reasons.
                      .
                      My attempting to show the AGW faithful their error is as futile as trying to convert a fervent believer in some religion to atheism. They will continue to kneel before the Hockey Stick statue, recite their incantations and buzz words, and recite the Gospel of St. Algore. So, be happy in your ignorance. The priests will explain that the Hockey Stick graph is really not faked [there was no Medieval Warming Period, ity was made up by the oil/gas/coal industry], the dangerous warming they predicted 25 years ago really, really happened (it just got buried in the deep oceans – at a time when the pacific is unnaturally cold) and so on.
                      .
                      You can respond; in fact you certainly will, but I’m out of here. As they sday, trying to teach a pig to sing is pointless; it doesn’t woork, it just annoys the pig.

        • Nick697

          In fact: “To each according to his needs; from each according to his means.” (Marx – and I don’t mean Groucho.)

    • Louis

      Lee, you might want to look into the Lima Declaration in 1974, that will give you a whole new outlook on this issue…..

  • jameshrust

    Are the Rockies doing good enough this year to warrant having this sign across the street from the stadium?
    Jim Rust, Atlanta, GA

  • derfelcadarn

    What makes these cretins believe they have the authority to redistribute the Peoples wealth. Redistribute your own wealth using mine is theft !

    • roberta4343

      exactly I will say again no true court has ever been convened no victims presented and no evidence prsented and no proper due process at all. what right does one human have to decide another human is guilty of something they had no control of or based on opinion without actually presenting a true tort.

    • jcarls

      This billboard is a gross distortion of what Edenhofer actually said, which was in German, not English. CFACT is committed to lying to the public and exposing global warming denialist for what they truly are: paid lobbyists for the oil industry.

      • Nick697

        “Paid lobbyists for the oil industry”? How pathetic. Can’t you people come up with something original? Has the Algore KoolAid affected your minds so badly that all you can do is parrot this bilge? How about “paid scientists bought off by the IPCC”? Here’s some of what you would call “paid lobbyists.” It’s from four years ago, since when several hundred more scientists have since joined the list and four more years with no detectable warming have passed:
        .
        Washington, DC:
        Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.
        .
        The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times
        the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.
        .
        The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC. Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
        .
        The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros, of the UK Natural History Museum, specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.
        .
        Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H.
        Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lamented the current fears over global warming. “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.
        .
        ‘Could turn the climate change world upside down’
        The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. “I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

        • jcarls

          “Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added
          to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the
          total to over 700 skeptical international scientists”

          You are posting the same BS you posted before. It does not change the fact that 700 “scientists” do not equal the peer-reviewed work of climatologists. The U.S. Senate Minority Report is propaganda coming from the Republican Party. Only fools would pay attention to these liars and thugs.

          “How pathetic. Can’t you people come up with something original?”

          Why do we need to invent lies like you do when we have the “follow the money” research that proves what is going on behind propaganda machines like yours? Why is it that the people who are funding the climate change denial scam want to hide the money they are pouring into it?

          http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

  • Nick697

    Something amusing – and significant – just happened here in SE Pennsylvania. A county just approved fracking and asked residents to report any adverse effects they experienced. Many of these poured in, including one from a farmer who said the runoff was killing his potatoes, several who said their coffee tasted strange and one who claimed the tap water was blunting his razor blades. Several had their water tested and reported methane present. Then the county commissioners dropped the bomb. No fracking had started yet.