Expose global warming fraud.  Sign our petititon!

EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S. 

Welcome to Washington.

January 25, 2010
by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

With the nation mired in a prolonged recession, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to tighten standards for ground-level ozone (smog), a move widely expected to impose significant economic burdens on communities struggling to overcome double-digit unemployment.

EPA Jan. 7 proposed setting the “primary,” or public-health, standard for smog between 0.060 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm measured over eight hours. The agency is also putting forward a “secondary” ozone standard, designed to protect trees and plants.  This secondary standard would be between the range of 7 to 15 parts per million-hours, based on a cumulative, weighted total of daily 12-hour exposure to ozone by plants and crops over a three-month period.  In a statement, the agency says, “Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills, and vehicles react with the sun.”  Revealingly, the statement makes no mention of how the natural environment interacts with such emissions to help form ozone.

Depending on the final determination of the standards, EPA estimates, perhaps optimistically, that the new rules will have a price tag of between $19 billion and $90 billion in the years to come.  Coal-fired power plants, for example, will be forced to install scrubbers to reduce emissions, and those costs will be passed on to consumers.

Even more important is the impact the proposed new standards will have on certain jurisdictions throughout the country.  As reported in Greenwire (Jan. 8, 2010), “at least 515 U.S. counties contain smog levels that exceed the highest level proposed, and as many as 650 now have levels above the lowest limit.  These estimates are based on EPA data from 2006 to 2008.”  Greenwire further reports that the areas most heavily affected by the new standards include large swaths of California and Arizona, much of the Eastern Seaboard and the Midwest.  Many of those areas, encompassing 322 counties, already violate the smog standard (0.075 ppm) set by the Bush administration in 2008

A constant complaint uttered by local officials and businesses leaders over the years is that, just as they are on the verge of complying with EPA’s latest standard, the agency tightens the screws again, forcing them to scramble to meet the new standard.

Houston, Texas provides a case in point.  Vehicle emissions there have fallen in recent years because of  technological improvements and cleaner fuels, despite the growing number of cars, reports the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 20, 2010). “Harris County, where Houston is located,” the WSJ points out, “had 3.1 million cars last year compared with 2.9 million in 2005.”  Even with more vehicles producing lower emissions, Houston runs the risk of being out of compliance for smog indefinitely.

EPA’s latest action on smog could be undermined by another regulatory move the agency is expected to make later this year.  Within the next few months, EPA is expected to bow to the wishes of ethanol producers, and approve the boosting of the ethanol blended with gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.  The fuel, known as E15, is currently undergoing testing by the Energy Department.  If those tests prove successful, EPA is expected to approve the use of E15 in vehicles manufactured in 2001 or later by mid-year.

By giving a green light to E15, EPA would be throwing a lifebelt to the heavily subsidized ethanol industry, which is suffering from overproduction, relatively affordable gasoline prices, and lingering consumer distrust of the low-energy fuel.  Indeed, E85 is bitterly opposed by automakers, equipment manufacturers, petroleum refiners and blenders, and even some environmental groups.  Automakers are particularly concerned that increased use of alcohol-based ethanol in fuel will corrode engines, even in newer vehicles.

Underneath the hood, higher ethanol content leads to slower-burning fuel which overheats the pistons in the engine.  Hotter engine cycles can result in piston rings becoming stuck, which can shorten the life of the engine and cause pollution, including emissions that help form smog.

Unable to pressure Congress to pass costly cap-and-trade legislation to curb manmade greenhouse gases, the Obama administration is now directing EPA to impose new regulations on ground-level ozone.  Meanwhile, EPA’s coddling of ethanol threatens to raise levels of the very pollutant it claims it wants to reduce.

Welcome to Washington. 

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.
Bookmark and Share
0 Print
Comments 0
Be the first to comment!
Login or register to respond
Username:
Password:
Register | Forgot your password?
Read More

CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalism

Environmentalists attack nickel mine

Utah protests federal land control

India sets up independent global warming panel

Disclosing the real risks of climate change

A chill hits wind power

CFACT continues their mission in Cancún

After Copenhagen: Greens disappointed and directionless

Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook

Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook

Get updates by email

CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships

In daring land and sea raids, activists tag Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior with “Propaganda Warrior” banner; Arctic Sunrise hit with “Ship of Lies” banner earlier in the day...

Monckton names names on Climategate

Lord Christopher Monckton debunks climate fears in Copenhagen...

The rainforest issue: Myths and facts

CFACT briefing paper compares two very differing views about people and nature in the tropics...

All pain, no gain

The reality behind the mythology of Cap and Trade...

The clear-cutting facts about the rainforest

Are we really losing one football field every minute?...

Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheet

Viking history, ice core samples, and observations of solar cycle cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change...

Addressing the root causes of illegal immigration

Focusing on property rights and economic opportunity back home could help solve growing border issue...

CFACT arrives in Copenhagen

CFACT's delegation arived in Copenhagen, Denmark to educate delegates and media from around the world that the climate change treaty is All Pain No Gain....

Are organic foods really better?

Facts challenge organic's benefits over modern agriculture...

Climate Depot is impacting Obama's climate initiative

Columnist notes that President Obama must speak out or there will be an increase in climate change skepticism....

With Adversaries Like This – You Don’t Need Friends

...

An independent review for the IPCC?

With adversaries like this – you don’t need friends...

CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalism

Morano received The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award for his exposé of the ClimateGate scandal....

Environmentalists attack nickel mine

A proposed nickel and copper mine in Michigan’s economically hard-hit Upper Peninsula will never see the light of day if a coalition of environmental groups get their way....

Utah protests federal land control

Lost jobs and tax revenues have made withstanding the current recession all the more difficult....

India sets up independent global warming panel

Prediction: The Indian science panel will hasten the end for the IPCC’s once-dominant view of man-made climate change....

Disclosing the real risks of climate change

SEC says companies must disclose risks due to climate change. Seize the opportunity....

A chill hits wind power

How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very....

CFACT continues their mission in Cancún

CFACT students deliver laptops and hope to la Ciudad de la Alegria....

After Copenhagen: Greens disappointed and directionless

...

mcharris

Heaven Help us AL GORE to be awarded Doctorate


The University Chancellor, Jimmy Cheek, considers Al to be amongst the most accomplished and respected Tennesseans in history. He considers it fitting that Al should be honored by the flagship education institution of his home state.


http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/dear-doctor-al.html...

{ from An independent review for the IPCC? }

Comdenom

Congrats and thanks to Marc Morano, we certainly need more like you and another big thanks to AIM for their moral and ethical perspective with the good sense to uphold and encourage these values...one great defense against propaganda....

{ from CFACT's Marc Morano recognized for outstanding journalism }

Comdenom

Well I guess it's up to us to counter that petition, I can't believe the stunts Greenpeace gets away with....

{ from Environmentalists attack nickel mine }

thankevanne

Even if you ignor the fact that production does not match need the fact is that wind generators produce only about one fourth of their rated max output because of the come and go nature of wind so the generator has to be 4 times as large (or 4 times as many generators) to produce the desired output. Imagine building a coal or NG or Nuclear plant and then running it at 1/4 of its capacity - its nonesense - nobody would build one with that kind of restriction - it's economically incompetant, it's inefficient, it's a waste of resources used to build it, and yet that is what we do when we build a wind farm or a solar farm. The 4x capital cost &maintanence (exorbitanly high for wind and solar)make them unfeasable. And then of course you have the unreliability of the production from them. The fact is they would not work at all without the leveling capability of the conventional power plants. Just ask anyone who is off grid with wind or solar - they have to use batteries for storage to do their leveling!
Kevin Cook...

{ from A chill hits wind power }

nypd204

Um, how about the blood tests that showed high white blood cell counts, a precursor to leukemia, and chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. In fact, 33 percent of the residents had undergone chromosomal damage, while in a normal population, this should be at 1 percent...There was also dioxin (polychlorinated dibenzodioxins) in the water, a very hazardous substance. Dioxin pollution is usually measured in parts per trillion at Love Canal, water samples showed dioxin levels of 53 parts per billion...residents exhibited a "disturbingly high rate of miscarriages...stricken by nervous disorders and cancers to the discovery of toxic materials in the milk of nursing mothers." In one case, two out of four children in a single Love Canal family had birth defects one girl was born deaf with a cleft palate, an extra row of teeth, and slight retardation, and a boy was born with an eye defect. A survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had a birth defect. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces. According to Dr. Whelan, she declared that people were not falling ill due to exposure to chemical waste, but from stress caused by the media. Who knew that stress causes birth defects.

I came across this site by researching a plume of contamination on Long Island located in east Farmingdale, and I cant help but see some unbelievably dumb statements in this article. I am far from a tree hugger, I drive a 1969 Chevy, and have extreme disdain for (nO)Bama.

But i ask the author of this article..would you let your kids attend the 99th street school in the 1960s and 70s?...

{ from Since Love Canal, superfund ain't so super }

rgonz71

"Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"

LOL

Exxon can save their money. The AGW fraudsters don't need help discrediting themselves....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

rgonz71

"You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll."

Personally I don't think Exxon or any other oil company is better or worse than any other corporation out there. Corporations are nothing more than groups of people selling a product people need. A product btw that YOU need to sit comfortably at your computer all nice and warm making such idiotic statements.

Also, the Oil industry gives money to both sides of the debate. So I guess those on the AGW side are thugs as well....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

BobDevine

I have no problem with anyone using wind power but they should do so at their own convenience not with government subsidies. The same goes for solar power. You like it you buy it the operative word being "you"....

{ from A chill hits wind power }

ibykus

Not Bad. They should take things from a slightly higher standpoint and expose this swindle as part of the policy of empire....

{ from Laughs for Greenpeace "Climate Caper" turning into international roar }

mcharris

http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html

I am curious to know if anyone in the USA has worked out yet how much it cost in $$$'s and in carbon emissions to send your 'team' and 'your President' to Copemhagen?

The Australian Contingent has passed some comment about their own carbon emissions being 'off set'...... what about the rest of the world?

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/carbon-credits.html...

{ from Taxpayer Robbery Gate }

mcharris

http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html
Aussie support the fight agains the theory - coz that is what it is ONLY A THEORY of AGW... need to find a way to stop the politicians from ruining our future.

Thanks for the great articles...

{ from Don't Get Mad About the Weather - Get Even }

cindym03

CFACT is mainly funded by private citizens. A smaller proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in various industries, as well as foundations. Its financial backers have included The Exxon Mobil Corporation (although Exxon no longer donates to CFACT),[6] The Chevron Corporation,[7] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[7] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[8] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[9]

...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

TheViewMaster


The "Warmies" Must Convert To "Come Clean" Energy NOW, Or They Are DOOMED!!!

...

{ from Don't Get Mad About the Weather - Get Even }

mkwrk2

Is any possible link between the Rosenfeld Effect (a "flat" per capita energy consumption)http://www.mercurynews.com/green-energy/ci_14059885?nclick_check=1 and this topic, in California especially?

Probably, it is enough time an expert to officially clarify an issue till 13 January 2010.

M. Kerjman...

{ from Addressing the root causes of illegal immigration }

RationalKeith

Isn't Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard the same confrontational person who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, the organization that Patrick Moore dumped because their whole focus is negative, anti-life?

Was Paul Waton ousted from Greanpeace because of his more violent approach to "protest"?

Why does “Curative_Process” claim the the organization are different?”

(Beware Greenpeace plays the name shuffle game.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson



...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

ExxonShareholder

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

MichaelGOP

CFACT receives no funds from Exxon. CFACT and its allies are winning the climate debate with sound science, despite being outspent by far....

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

MichaelGOP

CFACT'S Bills are paid by average people who care about free markets, sound science and open minds.

...

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

MichaelGOP

CFACT receives no funding from Exxon. Time to think up fresh propaganda. Or maybe actually engage in the science & policy debate and stop looking for a reason not to? Sorry, left wingers, you're losing the debate on every level....

{ from Knute suit }

Harmen

Well the first one on this site is denying global warming.
This guy denies that the warming is not caused by man.

Let me tell you something about logic. If A causes B, and you believe (or measure, as you like) that B is not the case, why do you spend any effort on denying that A causes B?
And doesn't that imply that this guy thinks that B is the case?



...

{ from Is global warming from man? }

clothcap

CRU has asked Exxon Mobil for cash. Does that make them shills for "big oil"?...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

plaidness

Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri must be cut from the same cloth. Surprise surprise!...

{ from Lord Christopher Monckton questions IPPC chairman }

Claudeeb

Good to see the neo eco-fascists getting a little hot under the collar.
TRUTH does that.
What you do not see from the lefty loonies is a little common sense.
Blind - lemming like - adherence to the political script.
Do not label me a sceptic as I do listen and observe with sincerity.
Do not call me a denier as I am open to consider any hypothesis based on actual science.
Do not seek to take steps to exercise fascist control over me or my children on any account.
In terms of AGW = No longer do I give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt.
God bless Australia...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

mistamillions

Well cfact get 10 out of 10 for that greenpeace stunt, It winds me up that greeenpeace are perpetuating the global warming myth... peeps need to open there eyes and get wise.

Also why is it that whenever anybody speaks out against global warming they get accused of being on the payroll of oil companies?

Your Greenpeace action tells me all I need to know... Well done....

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

ExxonShareholder

shill  [shil] Show IPA Slang –noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

So let's say you're a guy who runs a website for climate change skeptics, you travel to Copenhagen and throw up some fake grass roots graffiti. In actuality your organization is funded by Exxon, and you don't disclose this information on your website where you post pictures of that fake grass roots graffiti. Would you consider that yourself a shill? If CFACT disclosed their sources of funding on this website I wouldn't have to waste my time mentioning it.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Kenshin

Awesome work CFact!
You also could have included GPs' stance on whaling and seal hunting.
They've ran countless propaganda on those 2 subjects so much so that I bet you guys didn't even know some of these facts.

The ban on commercial whaling was bought in large part by Green Peace and NGOs like them.
http://ufdcweb2.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/?b=WL00001269&v=00001


Minke whales (the ones hunted back then and now) are not endangered, and never have been.
The same is true with Harp Seals (the ones Canadians go after.)


Scientists agree they can be sustainable hunted. The IWC's scientific committee, which regulates international whaling, agree on this point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm

Even Australian (the country who has come out and said whaling itself is immoral!!) scientists agree.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/flannery-worried-about-small-fish-not-big-whale-culls/2007/12/31/1198949702750.html
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/48884/2/18822079.pdf


So why does GP have such a huge propaganda machine on anti-whaling and anti-seal-hunting??
Easy. They're cute and bring in tons of cash. Listen to ex-GP member Paul Watson explain it perfectly. Ironically, Watson now uses the exact same theory with his eco-terrorist NGO Sea Shepherd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gTBDFTXE0

On whaling, they get away with so many lies because the media does 0 fact-checking and reports SS and GP propaganda as FACT. They report things like Japanese breaking "laws" or using "loopholes" or "attacking" or "kidnapping" when every single one of those is complete propaganda and lies.


I will finish saying... I used to believe in global warming. But the actions of NGOs like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have really forced me to re-evaluate that stance, and how much the media reports.
I still think global warming is happening and we play some percentage in that but what percentage? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? And at what percentage should we start to look at our own actions? These are the questions I would like to see more debate on.

I do not want to see ridiculous santa claus "the polar ice caps are melting" appeal-to-emotions commercials and demonizing of people who have a different opinion.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Curative_Process

THE REAL FACE OF COPENHAGEN is an Aussie Farmer named PETER SPENCER.

Spencer is his Day 27 of his HUNGER STRIKE, as a last resort in his long battle against the Eco-Fascist doctrine of Agenda 21. He is perched high up on a wind tower on his property just outside of the nations capital Canberra.

Photos of Peter high up on the wind tower where he intends to stay on his hunger strike until his demands are met are on his Support Website
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike

Excellent Radio Interview with Peter and his Barrister (by Alan Jones of 2GB, same guy who interviewed Lord Monckton exposing ‘The Copenhagen Treaty’ that sparked the Revolution in Australia to oust Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull and Vote Down the ETS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUEmV7Fv58

Background info BLOG written by Mr Peter Spencer in 2005, where he outlines the problem back then.
‘A Proposed Environmental Services Protocol’
http://web.archive.org/web/20060820010057/peterspencer.id.au/archives/stewardship/

Peters original BLOG from 2005 where his first post explains his plight
http://web.archive.org/web/20051124044926/http://peterspencer.id.au/
...

{ from Climate skeptics gain steam }

Michael_H_Anderson

I can post mainstream media links too if you like. Try these on - a little more recent than yours:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119061

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

Look whopays, let's be reasonable: you are here to disrupt this website. That's pathetic. You could try getting a life, you know. You're not going to change anyone's mind here, your information is outdated and no longer relevant, which makes your entire presence here irrelevant and frankly I'm embarrassed for you and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Do that, and I'll stop showing you up as the ignorant fellow you well and truly are. Deal? Or are you just a garden-variety Net troll, doing damage to your entire cause by acting like a third-grader? Keep it up then....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

'Scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years'? That's brilliant. What part of this did you miss, fool?

I just checked those links...December 2004 for crying out loud! You IDIOT, are you living in a CAVE? Have your handlers not notified you of the huge global crisis assaulting the entire edifice of AGW theory? How cruel of them, and how pathetic of you to let them use you that way! Dumbass!!!

Yeah, damn right I have different view of global warming than you do. I have a non-partisan, intensively researched, unpaid, critically observed view, and you have a pre-
Climategate, outdated, pathetically ignorant view....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Regarding the former links I sent regarding the overwhelming evidence that there is scientific consensus around climate change, scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years.

http://climateaudit.org/

I appreciate the fact that unlike the guys who maintain this website, Steve doesn't appear to be on the payroll of big oil. However about the the vast majority of climatologists who conduct peer-reviewed scientific research disagree with him. I can see how, if you spend all day on his website, you might have a different opinion of global warming than I do. One thing to remember is that The National Academies of Sciences of 32 countries disagree with him. They have good websites too....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

I just wrote the admins here suggesting IP blacklisting this site is being systematically spammed, with the obvious intention of quashing genuine debate and wasting the time of genuinely interested users. Free speech is one thing spambots attacking a site another....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

Nice job reading those sites I mentioned, you useless braindead spamming halfwit sophomoric loser pathetic troll. Last time I bother addressing you - hell, you're probably just a spambot anyway. Much rather deal with actual human beings....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

ExxonShareholder

Fellow Cimate Change Skeptics!

I've come across a great article from the Economist. This should really shut the liberals up and help my portfolio. You see, just do a cost/benefit analysis of taking steps to save the planet. As you can clearly see from this article it's not anyone's short term financial interest to worry about this saving the planet nonsense. As we all know, if it's not in our short term financial interest it doesn't get done. Right guys? I'm laughing all the way to the bank. I don't have any grandchildren so I really don't care.

Here's some information from the article:

Degrees of Difference, The Economist, Apr 29th 2004

Cost/Benefit analysis of saving the planet:

Kyoto:
The costs of abatement amount to $94 trillion, giving a global benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.77.

Global Carbon Tax:
The discounted costs of applying such taxes would amount to $128 trillion up to 2300. The benefits are reckoned to be $271 trillion. That produces a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.1.

Abating global warming in 95% of possible outcomes, rather than focusing only on the median prediction for climate change:

This strategy is even more aggressive than the other two, as it addresses worst-case scenarios. Reducing emissions by enough to mitigate damage in 95% of scenarios would be extraordinarily expensive—a cost of 3.5% of world economic output for the rest of the 21st century, rising to 5% later.

What about making some money off of those AIDS internment camps that Lord Monckton was looking into settin up. Any money in that?...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

I just checked those links...December 2004 for crying out loud! You IDIOT, are you living in a CAVE? Have your handlers not notified you of the huge global crisis assaulting the entire edifice of AGW theory? How cruel of them, and how pathetic of you to let them use you that way! Dumbass!!!...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

Shut up, who cares, YAWN......

{ from All Pain No Gain Video: Inconvenient Science }

Michael_H_Anderson

I just wanted to state that nobody here except you gives a damn, whopaysyourbills1984....

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

Michael_H_Anderson

Only complete nitwits get their science news from Greenpeace or mainstream media. Try these links, and READ them, don't use juvenile tactics like logical fallacies and misdirection to "support" your outdated True Believer viewpoint:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://www.surfacestations.org/

As you can see, you are well behind the times. So why don't you SHUT UP and go hide out with the other True Believers where your useful idiocy and ability to parrot outdated scaremongering will be best appreciated, and leave those of us interested in facts, hard science and the full scope and outrageous scandal of this massive profiteering hoax as it continues to be exposed in all its repulsive glory.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

For my fans out there I'd like to offer a few more links, these are for those who think there isn't a scientific consensus that global warming is real and that man contributes to global warming. Of course, it's hard to find scientific consensus that cigarettes cause cancer.

I wasn't trying to lie in paraphrasing the other article, that's why I posted the link for you to read and review. See how it works? Note, that's different from this website where you post assertions about the extent to which Greenpeace lies without backing them up with additional information or references. That's why Chris gets the big bucks from Exxon. Poor journalism.

I appreciate you taking the time to follow the links, and if you post an article from a reputable newspaper disputing these findings, I'll read it. Anyting from editorial sections of conservative financial publications, take your pick.

I imagine if you're a climate change skeptic, and you're reading the 'journalism' on this website, you're already deeply immersed in 'seek and ye shall' find research.

Enjoy these:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Oh yes and Lord Monckton supported internment camps for people with AIDS (see my previous posts).
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

whopaysyourbills1984's brain-dead spam is paid for by the taxpayers of whatever country he's from, since he's almost certainly on welfare....

{ from A different kind of red and green this Yuletide }

Michael_H_Anderson

I wonder who pays YOUR bills, whopaysyourbills1984. Living in Canada, I am grateful every day for oil companies as they have kept me and my family and friends and millions of others from freezing to death to say nothing of the other life-saving tecnologies the wealth oil produces have made possible. Maybe you live on a tropical island in a grass hut with solar-powered computer and Net connection, and have never used internal-combustion transport in your life. Unfortunately for the other 6.5 billion of us, we don't always have that luxury.

Thanks for your hopelessly outdated weblinks, you cheeky little parrot, but - no thanks....

{ from Knute suit }

Michael_H_Anderson

I don't know if it's true, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the time of day, and don't care at least it isn't funded by liemongers like Greenpeace, the WWF, or the IPCC, you stupid troll....

{ from Is global warming from man? }

Michael_H_Anderson

If anyone is curious to know what I might mean by socially undeveloped, how about these pointers:

- unfocused anger for no particular reason, most likely a result of frustrated sex lives

- kneejerk antipathy to "establishment" capitalist society - the rotting carcass of the hippie era, still showing zombie-like longevity after almost half a century, and entirely inspired by the KGB and its highly successful campaign to demoralize the West through media, Universities, and pop culture, cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo and related interviews

- need to belong to a group, cult, or gang of like-minded individuals

- undeveloped critical thinking ability

- detachment from understanding of their own means of survival, either because of welfare or some other means of economic dependency such as education grants/loans or parental dependence

These factors and many more typically found in various combinations in the typical spoiled, poorly educated and ignorant Western youth make them perfect fodder for recruitment into the Green movement and related philosophies such as the 2012 doomsday cult and boutique "revolutionary" anticapitalist groups....

{ from The rainforest issue: Myths and facts }

Michael_H_Anderson

You're not an activist if you're whopaysyourbills1984, either - you're a puppet. Worse: a parrot of a puppet....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore writes:

Although old trees contain huge amounts of carbon, their rate of sequestration has slowed to a near halt. A young tree, although it contains little fixed carbon, pulls CO2 from the atmosphere at a much faster rate.
...

{ from The clear-cutting facts about the rainforest }

Michael_H_Anderson

This is an excellent essay. As a former Green NGO information officer and nature educator, I have been particularity interested in the extinction issue. In spite of the high-flown claims of environmental groups seeking power, funding and career relevance, it is impossible to know not only the rate of extinctions, but the number of species on earth.

A quick read of the final chapters of "When Life Nearly Died" by Michael Benton - who actually quotes Al Gore and is an admitted believer that humanity is responsible for a modern mass extinction - reveals that in fact extinction rates are pure guesswork. They are based on "historical rates", by which he means for example the extinctions of birds, such as the Great Auk and Dodo in the 17th and early 19th centuries. I hope we can all agree that such extinction rates do not in ANY way resemble what is happening now, with the draconian protection measures that have been in place for many decades, and in any case cannot be extrapolated to apply to all species. Moreover, I hope it's also obvious we do not have millions of field biologists roaming the planet counting every individual member of every known specie - quite the opposite in fact: the zoological research being done now reveals new species every day.

Further guesswork is applied to the number of species in existence. I have seen guess ranging from 12 million to (in Benton's book) 100 million. In any event, history shows us that the earth is a vast uncaring indifferent meat-grinding machine into which countless species have already disappeared biodiversity is a gift as easily withdrawn as granted. What troubles me about the Green movement and inspired my complete dissociation from it is that human beings and their activities are regarded as unnatural and inimical to life, and it is easy for them to recruit the excess energy of unfocused, socially undeveloped young people to their greedy, narrow ends. I only pray - daily - that humanity will one day be free of the lust for control and domination of their fellow humans that is their true inspiration....

{ from The rainforest issue: Myths and facts }

DesertMan

whopaysyourbills1984 wrote: "Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. "

Ah yes, the red herring the AGW faithful try to use to silence or discredit anyone they find "inconvenient." Let's debunk it:

Let's begin with the plain fact that much science is done by people who are not scientists in the given field.

- John James Audobon, the famous French-American naturalist and ornithologist, had no university education at all.
- Charles Darwin's degree was in Theology, not any kind of science.
- Alfred Wegener, who formulated the theory of plate tectonics, was a meteorologist, not a geologist or geophysicist (and took much abuse from "real geo-scientists" because he was not degreed as one of "them."
- Roger Tory Peterson, the great American naturalist, was trained in art, not science.
- George LeMaitre, who formulated the original "Big Bang" theory of the Universe, was a Catholic priest and day-school teacher with a bent for mathematics. (And he, too, was often dismissed for his Catholicism and because he did not have a university affiliation.)

There are many, many more examples of the above.

It's also interesting to note the cases of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, current head of the IPCC, and of self-proclaimed climate "expert" Al Gore. Though they are the leading advocates for AGW and often opine on AGW's scientific merit, neither one is a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Pachauri has degrees in industrial engineering, none in any kind of science, and Gore has a Bachelor's degree in government, not science.

Human curiosity and each individual's search for truth will often take one far afield of where one started, as the examples above (and myriad more) clearly indicate. It's for that reason (and just plain common sense) that Scientific argument is (and should be) properly judged by its logic and evidence, not by formalistic barriers to entry.

-

Aside to all others: "whopaysyourbills1984" is a left-wing AGW troll on this list and his drivel is typically not worth answering. But in this case I've taken his message as an opportunity to debunk this baseless argument that AGW believers use to try to muzzle or discredit those who have the temerity to speak out against their dogma.

/DesertMan...

{ from Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower not }

Michael_H_Anderson

whopaysyourbills1984 - you're missing the point. The POINT is that nobody in their right wits cares what a lobotomized cretin like you thinks about anything....

{ from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science }

DaveJ

Great to see Greenpeace suffer and great to see so many comedy posts by "whopaysyourbills1984" Keep them coming old chap!
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

philwynk

A correction: it was 489 scientists surveyed, not 97. Ninety-seven was the percentage of those who agree that the earth warmed in the 20th century....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

philwynk

Hard leftists generally assign individuals to counter sites like this one. Yours seems to have been inflicted with a fellow who calls himself "whopaysyourbills1984."

As is my usual habit when encountering leftist shills, I followed his link in the first of his objections, the one posing a false dichotomy to produce a fallacious argument: "Who should you believe regarding global warming, 97% of atmospheric scientists or Lord Monckton?" Of course, the dichotomy is nothing like this, nor is a 40 million Frenchman fallacy a worthy argument, but still, I read his link.

He lied.

It's an utterly dishonest post he wrote. The article does say that 97% of meteorologists AND GEOPHYSICISTS (he forgot to mention those,) only 41% of whom were involved in any aspect of climate science (he forgot to mention that,) agreed that the earth had warmed over the past century. Of course, that's not the focus of most objections, is it?

The same article says that among these same 97 scientists, 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." Note that this does not say they think that ALL the warming is human-induced, just that some of it might be. My guess is that if you asked Lord Monckton, he actually might agree that humans may have had some role in some of the warming that might have occurred.

It is my habit to read the links posted by leftist shills because invariably, when you do, you find that they have dishonestly represented the contents of the link. Invariably. ALL THE TIME. EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS. I always find the refutation for their nonsense in the very article to which they linked.

And, as is my habit, once I have proved that the shill is either lying through his/her teeth or is unable to comprehend what they read, I ignore the rest of what they have to say....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

sylvainr

Activists told you that polar bear population is shrinking and you think it is sound science ?

Interesting **scientific** paper here about polar bear population:

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6317/1/MPRA_paper_6317.pdf

The conclusion is :

The issue of listing a species under the Endangered Species Act should be based on credible scientific forecasts. Based on our Internet search of the published scholarly research and on appeals to other researchers WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY PAPERS THAT REFERRED TO SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE FOR MAKING FORECASTS OF POLAR BEAR POPULATION.

Furthermore, a review of the references in the nine government reports written to support the listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act failed to find any papers relevant to scientific forecasting procedures.
...

{ from Knute suit }

ExxonShareholder

Craig,

Great job with the website, and great job today fighting those Greenpeace guys and looking out for Shell Oil. As a shareholder I support anyone looking out for their short-term financial interest. Greenpeace got some of their numbers wrong and you're doing a good job of slamming them and misrepresenting what happened. Too bad this isn't Nigeria where you can just kill the environmentalists who disagree with you. Do you hear what I'm saying?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shell-on-trial-1690616.html

Also It's too bad the outgoing chairman of Shell has jumped ship. Maybe he knows more about Shell than you do? Dig up some dirt on that guy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article508325.ece

Craig, I hope that you never look into the mirror like that. I'm counting on you to keep my portfolio intact. If people still don't believe in evolution we should have no trouble getting them to believe climate change isn't real. Even though every major organization who studied the subject pretty much agree that climate change is real and man is responsible, I love what you guys are doing to cast doubt on the subject. Keep parading around that good old Lord Monckton. I love his style:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece

I had a suggestion for your website. Since you never list the authors when you publish these articles, people might tend to get suspicious that you're really just interviewing yourself over and over again. Have you ever counted the number of times you quote yourself? I have an answer! How about making up names of authors? That way it won't be so obvious that CFACT quotes CFACT in every posting. I have another favor to ask. Since I also own stock in Altria, could you pull your next stunt at the AMA? Those idiots believe that smoking causes cancer.

Anyway, you guys rock and keep up the good work. Hey have you noticed that BP is paying a 6% dividend now? Get in on this!...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Curative_Process

ps People who know the truth and want the truth to be outted should not be called 'skeptics', they should be called GLOBAL WARMING REALISTS or CLIMATE TRUTHERS or CLIMATE REALISTS.

This is not about skepticism as that is playing into their dialectic, we have to keep a reality check and remember this all started with Al Gore and his Global Warming Agenda. In March 2009 they moved to a worldwide memorandum to drop GW an recall it Climate Change.

But this is about Global Warming and AGW. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you understand 'the agenda' then stick to the truth and call them up on it, don't get sucked into their dialectic smoke screens.
...

{ from Climate skeptics gain steam }

Curative_Process

What the mainstream propaganda media failed to tell you was the truth of the FALL OUT of events that started with LORD MONCKTONS Radio Interview with Alan Jones of 2GB, exposing the Treason of The Copenhagen Treaty. And what followed was the biggest People Power Ground Swell in virtual history as 11 Liberal MPs QUIT their portfolio's on the bench under Goldman Sachs Turnbull in disgust, as MANY THOUSANDS of Australians lobbied ALL of the Liberal MPs and National MPs to FIRE Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull (at that time the leader of the Liberals who as a former CEO of Goldman Sachs in Australia, multi-millionaire and best buddies with PM Kevin Rude, who was bizarrely wanting to follow Kevin Rude up the ETS path). And for Tony Abbott to take over as the leader.

This was an effort by Radio Station 2GB and truther journalists like ANDREW BOLT who kept up the heat, whilst 99% of Australian media being controlled by extreme Left wing Fabian Socialists Blacklisted any anti-Kevin Rude and any anti-ETS and any anti-Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull stories.

This proved that PEOPLE POWER lives and works in a true democracy facing tyranny and fascism at the hands of our multi-millionaire Prime Minister Commissar Kevin Rude, his minions and his paid PRIVATE PR firm.

The Australian people have had enough of Kevin Rude and demand him to be sacked by the Governor General of Australia citing TREASON, FRAUD and LIES to the Australian People and The Australian Constitution.

Now we have an intelligent and Australian (Australia First) leader in Tony Abbott who has already called Kevin Rude's bluff to bring on an early snap election over the whole Climategate and ETS issue.

Thank god for Barnaby Joyce, Nick Minchin, Kevin Andrews, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Abbott etc........

There is a lesson to be learned by people of the US, UK, Canada, NZ etc.. Time for the fascism to stop and people to WAKE UP and get off their lazy botts and lobby lobby lobby.

People Power works.. remember only 1% of them, and 99% of us....

{ from Climate skeptics gain steam }

Curative_Process

Whilst Greenpeace are expanding their carbon foot print at COP15 ...
the Greenpeace outpost in Australia is causing havoc and community uproar.

Google stories....
'Opera House ninjas from Greenpeace charged, spark fury among police who risked lives'
'Court adjourns Greenpeace protest cases' - Several activists stopped operations at the Hay Point terminal for more than 30 hours after suspending themselves from a coal loader.

Seems to me Greenpeace likes to 'hang around' alot.

Greenpeace have abandoned their usual JAPAN WHALE HUNT protests in ANTARCTICA, leaving it up to the US group the SEA SHEPARD CONSERVATION SOCIETY. I just heard Paul Watson of Sea Shepard just called from the deck, explaining how JAPAN has deployed military personnel on 2 security vessels sent to protect its Antarctic whaling fleet from intervention by the Sea Shepherd's flagship, 'Steve Irwin SV'. He reported that the 'Japanese sailors have fired water cannons at Sea Shepherd activists in a violent clash.'
Support these guys> www.seashepherd.org/ over Greenpeace anyday.

Someone should do an expose book on Greenpeace... does anyone know if one already exists?...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Who should you believe regarding global warming, 97% of atmospheric scientists or Lord Monckton?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern.html...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

robins111

Is it just me, or does whopaysyourbills1984, troll here, as much as at SDA?

I'm not sure, but I suspect that the old yeast infection is acting up again....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Here's a small sampling of scientists and institutions who disagree with Lord Monckton on climate change. Since we're not scientists, how trusting some of these organizations?

* European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* InterAcademy Council
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 32 National Science Academies
* Network of African Science Academies
* Royal Society of New Zealand
* National Research Council (US)
* European Science Foundation...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

whopaysyourbills1984

Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up?

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200912110006...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

Pops

Well, whopaysyourbills1984 seems to have fallen out of the wrong side of his/her/its cot. Greenpiss have been doing this sort of thing for years, much to his/her/its delight no doubt, but I just bet he/she/it nearly swallowed his/her/its dummy (pacifier) when he/she/it saw this.

Kudos to CFact.

Keep up the really cool work....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up?

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200912110006...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig, I has a suggestion. While you're fighting on behalf of Shell Oil, why don't you head down to Nigeria where can really crack some skulls:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shell-settles-nigerian-human-rights-abuses-lawsuit-for-155m-1700267.html

Think about it, then instead of just hanging signs up, you might be able to shoot, beat, or jail protesters! Think about it! I think that should be next on CFACTs 'activism' agenda....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

Your journalism is misleading crap.

Greenpeace immediately corrected their mistake when they realized they had overestimated the amount oil left on the rig. Good luck with the campaign against Greenpeace though, maybe if you're sucessfull Shell Oil will be able to dump whatever they want into the oceans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/218527.stm

By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby

In September Greenpeace realised that there was very much less oil than that. They immediately published the correction, even telephoning journalists to make sure they had received the press release giving the new figure.

But they insisted that the new amount made no difference at all to their belief that the Spar should be salvaged, not dumped....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Curative_Process

BRILLIANT!

Well done CFACT.. Greenpeace are obsolete and full of lies.

Greenpeace was hijacked by the Fabian Socialists to carry out 'the agenda 21'.
We must expose the lies, and how Greenpeace have ignorant people on the streets supporting them, boy didn't we see that this week with Lord Moncktons 'Monckton v Greenpeace' videos on youtube.

This give Greenpeace a taste of their own medicine, see if they can take it!? As in Australia this week, there was public outrage at Greenpeace who broke the law and climbed the Sydney Opera House sails to perform a simliar stunt, they thought it was a success, but 90% of the population who called radio stations and wrote complaint letters did not see it as a success.
And as I write this .. Japan and Norway still hunt to kill whales to eat, now the Japanese Govt will use Navy as military defense against Greenpeace, so what on earth have they achieved to stop this? Absolutely nothing.

About time this is a topic of discussion....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

"Alaska’s climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization...."

Governor Sarah Palin, July 2008
http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/docs/govrpt_jul08.pdf

Of course, this was when she was governor and needed the votes of constituents who's homes were falling into the ocean....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Curative_Process

@whopays .. you do know it Exxon donates to both Democrats and Republican, they back both horses. But don't be fooled, they are 100% behind the Global Warming Scam as they will benefit in kickbacks and subsidies, a little fact your country's leader (Obaahma) has not told you about. So the front needs to be kept up for the the propogated dialectic for numbnuts like you 'who believe' to believe in the smoke screen.
Now after your typical redirect agent 101 tactic of ad hominem, I now challenge you to address the Posted Topic of issue, that is... if you can!...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

whopaysyourbills1984

Donna, your web site is worse than this one. If you're writing your book discussing how there isn't a consensus on climate change, I would suggest that you interview some of the climatologists who disagree with you, and it shouldn't be difficult because 97% of climatologists disagree with you.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

This a great piece of 'journalism' considering the fact that two of the people who are interviewed, Craig Rucker 'College Graduate' Christina Wilson work for CFACT. I can see how it would be tiring to interview Lord Christopher Monckton over and over again considering the fact that he's the only one in Copenhagen who agrees with you. I should set up a website and interview myself to impress people and get some Exxon money. You're not excluded from the global warming debate if you've received over 585k from Exxon, however don't call yourself an activist for pulling these stunts, you're a corporate thug on the payroll....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

robins111

It's too bad it couldn't be paint....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Donna_Laframboise

Interesting to see Greenpeace get a taste of its own medicine. I disagree strongly, though, with Carbonlover's comment (Dec. 16, 8:54 am) that Greenpeace should be banned. To quote Noam Chomsky, "If you don't believe in free speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it all." I have made this point in several pro-green contexts and I'm repeating it loudly here.

As for the comment by Whopaysyourbills (Dec.16, 8:38 am), please note that this pro global-warming research institute at Princeton receives $2 million a year from BP (formerly known as British Petroleum): http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/40/40G69/index.xml?section=topstories

Please also observe that, according to this article, the head of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, is involved in no less than three petroleum-related business interests: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Who-is-calling-global-warmings-tune

If oil money disqualifies one from participating in the global warming debate, Dr. Pachauri has to go.

Donna Laframboise
NOconsensus.org...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

carbonlover

Well done CFACT! Greenpeace should be banned, as should most do-good green zealots. They understand nought about the role of carbon dioxide. Despite what anyone thinks, there is not one single piece of actual observed evidence that links carbon dioxide with global warming or climate change. Such evidence can never be found because it does not exist.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

JenniferMarohasy

Congratulations to Craig Rucker and crew!
Greenpeace really is just a multinational corporation that makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year by scaring children and gullible grow-ups with clever propaganda....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

whopaysyourbills1984

You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

TheViewMaster


It's a Rent-a-Mob... Rented by The Hoaxers!

*LOL*!!!...

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

whocareswhopaysbills

and other "greeny" websites are not funded by-sierra club, greenpeace, the UN, Al Gore and other activitist. Yea why don't you go out and gut down some more trees for a tree ring count you bafoon....

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

TheViewMaster


I Bet The "Hoaxers" Are Paying Them To Protest......

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

whopaysyourbills1984

Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. Lord Monckton nice job here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece...

{ from Lord Monckton on Climategate: Whistle Blower not }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php...

{ from Knute suit }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php...

{ from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php...

{ from All Pain No Gain Video: Inconvenient Science }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php...

{ from A different kind of red and green this Yuletide }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php...

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

whopaysyourbills1984

Nice job with the graffiti Craig. Did Exxon pay for the spray cans too, or just your ticket to Copenhagen....

{ from A different kind of red and green this Yuletide }

whopaysyourbills1984

Craig Rucker is funded by Exxon.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/global-warming-reducing-polar-bear-population/391177.html

"At CFACT's summit there was knowledge questioning, dialog, indeed intellectural (sic) skepticism." And it was paid for by Exxon. If you're looking out for Exxon's short term economic interests, this is the website for you....

{ from Knute suit }

whopaysyourbills1984

This organization is funded by Exxon:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25...

{ from All Pain No Gain Video: Inconvenient Science }

whopaysyourbills1984

This website is funded by Exxon.
http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4380...

{ from A different kind of red and green this Yuletide }

whopaysyourbills1984

This article has been brought to you by the Exxon corporation. It's the best junk science money can buy.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets...

{ from All pain, no gain }

whopaysyourbills1984

If you're reading this site. I hope Exxon is paying you, because they're certainly paying the authors.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets...

{ from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science }

whopaysyourbills1984

This website is an example of Exxon funding junk science. Exxon has paid CFACT over 500k so far.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets...

{ from New York Times carries CFACT's 'Climate Sense' Conference }

whopaysyourbills1984

CFACT is Exxon propaganda. They should stop trying to hide this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25...

{ from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen }

whopaysyourbills1984

Congratulations to Exxon for a organizing successful protest rally:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25...

{ from CFACT Collegians organize protest against appearance by Al Gore }

whopaysyourbills1984

This website is funded by Exxon. Why doesn't CFACT state this in their about page?...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

whopaysyourbills1984

This organization and web page are funded by Exxon. CFACT.org does a good job of hiding this....

{ from Is global warming from man? }

whopaysyourbills1984

I just wanted to state that this website is paid for by Exxon.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25...

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

aimew

I am having a hard time with the statement above where it states that only young, growing trees absorb CO2 it is my understanding that all green leaves take in CO2 and release O2 as long as they are alive. It is part of how plants opperate and has nothing to do with age or growth rate. What have I been missing?...

{ from The clear-cutting facts about the rainforest }

sdlawrence

That was a truly amazing exchange. I heard nothing but climate change mantras flying out of the good professor's mouth. Through all the rhetoric he truly sounded like a third-rate politician activist, and not an academician. It wasn't clear to me that he was a scientist until I heard him addressed as "Professor".

I was surprised that Marc Morano was able to get in a word edgewise (which usually isn't difficult for him), the AGW talking points were flying, and he was only able to address one or two (and very well) before being interrupted again.

The 5,000 number - bad move on the scientist's part....

{ from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News }

JohnOSullivan

CFACT is providing an essential service to those who wish to read and understand all facets of this often misrepresented and globally important issue. For context, we need to understands that in the 1970’s the world’s scientists were convinced the planet was enduring global cooling. The CIA even wrote a 30-page report on this subject despite the warmists claiming this is all an ‘urban legend.’

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

Then things changed and the Earth warmed from 1975-1998. I am a sceptic and even I do not dispute this fact. Nor will any serious scientist dispute that the planet has also shown a warming trend for the past 300 years. I and other sceptics argue that around 280 of those 300 years of warming cannot possibly be due to man - they have been natural. Even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2’s warming effect, CO2 cannot – repeat cannot – have been to blame for any other than the 23 years of warming that occurred up to 1998. While in secret, their own climatologists admit that there has been no warming this century as shockingly exposed in those leaked Climategate emails as shown by this one example from climatologist, Kevin Trenberth:

“ From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?….The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. “

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt

Publicly Trenberth, the CRU and NASA GISS tell the world the last decade has seen the warmest five years ever recorded, but in private Trenberth’s leaked email shows they know that is a lie. The world has only warmed if you believe the ground station data wasn’t ‘fudged’ which these liars admit they did in other emails.

The public now has the absolute proof that what ‘scientists’ admit to in private is opposed to what they say to the public. The actual facts about global temperatures can be found in the more trustworthy ERBE satellite data, which measures the long wave solar radiation exiting the atmosphere. The data from ERBE shows a rate inconsistent with the positive feedback forcing used in the CRU / NOAA / GISS computer models- essentially it proves the models are rigged and thus useless.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they wouldn’t have been having conversations of the kind illustrated in the Trenberth email above. It proves they have spent $50 billion of UN (and our) money doing nothing more than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2.

...

{ from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen }

JohnOSullivan

It’s important that all world leaders take on board what sceptic scientists have to say. The examination of where the allocation of funds by governments to scientific and technological issues tells us most about the true priorities of politicians.

First off what kinds of investments into research have the biggest developed nations put into technologies to tackle climate change? In 1988 the UN, at a cost to the world’s taxpayers of $50 billion set up the IPCC, an organisation whose task was to prove carbon dioxide warms the planet. Did this vast sum of money prove co2 increased temps? Answer: No. The best the IPCC can suggest is that they think it has an effect. How much of an effect? They say CO2 will, at most, raise the temp of the Earth by 1 degree C. Their computer models, however, predict scary ‘feedbacks’ by CO2 on clouds that might raise the temp of the globe by another 2 degrees C. Why the UN picked on CO2 presupposes they knew the cause of the ‘problem’ even before they spent $50 billion on trying to prove the link.

Meanwhile, the greatest real science developments have occurred in the US with ‘HAARP, a patented weather-modifying device that was tailored by the former Bush government as a 'Star Wars' defence mechanism. If global warming could truly turn out 'catastrophic' then this device would have been adapted towards 'saving the planet.' But it wasn't.

World governments have instead spent $9 billion on the Hadron Collider at CERN, the most expensive scientific experiment in human history. What does Hadron actually do? It simply measures particle impacts and it does this with the greatest computing power the planet can muster – that’s 15 petabytes per year. Or in simple terms, for comparison, every word spoken worldwide in one year, converted into text, would amount to 2–3 petabytes of data. That’s truly awesome PC power and not any of it went towards helping the University of East Anglia or NASA GISS ‘fudge’ their computations of global climate.

The US government has three atmospheric weather changing facilities, two in Alaska (north of Gakona and northeast of Fairbanks) and one in Puerto Rico. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in charge of weather control projects under authority of Public Law 205 of the 92nd Congress. This agency allegedly does not perform research into weather modification. Meanwhile, the 'Weather Modification Operations and Research Board' was a proposed agency of the United States government, intended to officially promote research into weather control. But a US Senate bill to create the board did not become law. So what does this tell us about US concerns over climate change?

Back here in the UK what's the Brown Government's big investment project? Well, it’s the taxpayer-funded London Olympics of 2012 costing over £10 billion. Critically, downstream a short way from the Olympic construction site, is the Thames Barrier, the second largest flood defence system in the world and built in 1974to protect low-lying London from floods, at a time when the world feared ‘global cooling.’ The Barrier cost £2 billion at today’s prices. Even back then everyone understood the threat to London of flooding because of the slow but continuous rise in high water level over the centuries (20 cm / 100 years) since the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

Thus can we say Prime Minister Brown truly believes all the hype that sea levels will rise by 20 feet or more this century? Aren't his expert advisers now screaming at him to get his priorities right? Answer: unlikely.

It’s simple common sense to figure out the truth when you follow the money.
...

{ from CFACT sponsors climate science conference: The debate is not over }

EuropeanAmerican

I was on board with this organization until I came across this article with it's absolutely insane statement:

"Also, the study did not test the organic system against the most recent form of conventional farming. No-till farming combined with genetically enhanced crops has been shown to be both better for the environment and more energy efficient than past conventional methods. If this method were placed up against organic farming, the 19 percent energy advantage of organic farming would, according to experts like Ron Baily of the Reason Public Policy Institute, likely disappear."

Specifically:

"No-till farming combined with genetically enhanced crops has been shown to be both better for the environment and more energy efficient than past conventional methods."

Better for the environment? Who's side is the author on, anyway? If this ludicrous and blatantly untrue comment regarding GMO foods is what this group "CFACT" advocates, then count me out!

Regarding GMO foods, in the opinion of a great knower or Reality, Mahrishi Mahesh Yogi: "This food is dangerous, very very dangerous. This food is poisonous. Eat it and you will leave the planet very quickly."

Better check out Expert Jeffrey M. Smith on GMO foods. <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm>
and decide for yourself.

And visitors of this site, be careful. It's becoming harder and harder to differentiate between the real and the unreal. Connect the dots!

Truth alone Triumphs!
<http://www.truthmovementamerica.com/>

...

{ from Are organic foods really better? }

john0sullivan

Alarmists who plug the dodgy theory of man made global warming are not applying the scientific method. Scientists all know that the science must stand on its own.

1.) In science the burden of proof is on the theory.

2.) The theory must provide the proof.

3. ) If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.

4.) That is part of the scientific method.

5. )The AGW theory predicts that CO2 causes global warming.

6.) CO2 is higher now then it was in 1998.

7. )Average global temperature has been declining since 1998

8.) The prediction made by the theory is wrong therefore the AGW theory must be discarded.

QED.

It is called the scientific method. It only takes one wrong result to discard a theory.

'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right a single experiment can prove me wrong.' Albert Einstein
...

{ from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science }

Hipnosis

To everyone at CFACT. Good luck with your mission. The service you are providing may very well be one of the most important ever attempted. Trillions of dollars, the prosperity of my country (Canada), the prosperity of the world and the truth are all in jeopardy. Thank you for doing this job....

{ from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen }

mkwrk2

M. Kerjman 's "Of Planetary Change Short Story" http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Of+Planetary+Change+Short+Story-a01074017802 says much of a real way planetary change is going....

{ from Is global warming from man? }

MacAaron

It would be interesting to find out who funds NRDC and to find out why they haven't been attacking the number one most-used herbicide in the U.S.: Roundup (Monsanto)......

{ from Is government standing in the way of lower food costs? }

MichaelGOP

The Chesapeake has always been a special place for us. We saw (and tasted) a bumper crab harvest not too long ago. What a pleasure when common sense solutions improve life for both man and nature....

{ from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay }

ProLibertate

People do not need to eat eggs.

This article is nothing more than justification to continue the exploitation of other beings for an unnecessary product. If people crave any foods currently made with eggs, there are plant based analogs that are delicious, satiating and unlike eggs, do not produce HCA's - Hetero Cyclic Amenes, a known carcinogen, when prepared. Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death in America, and diet is strongly implicated around the world in the causes for different types of cancer. Don't buy the industry lies.

Discover the cruelty free abundant foods available today that are healthier, kinder and sustainable.

www.veganvideo.org

www.chooseveg.com
...

{ from In praise of cages for egg laying hens }

ProLibertate

To megaskeptic-

Clearly you are misinformed: B12 can be found in numerous sources outside of animals- and furthermore, supplementation requirements are due now to our hygienic methods (hand washing, teeth brushing, processing of produce through irradiation and pasteurization etc) which destroy and eliminate what was formerly naturally abundant sources of B12.

People need to supplement Vit D too now because they live in cold climates and wear clothes (for social reasons and having spread to area outside the rain forests).

It is modernization and hygiene that has led us to these circumstances of B12 deficiency, not some biological "need" for consuming animal products. This has been debunked long ago....

{ from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? }

ProLibertate

Point One: Not true- considering 95% of the 10 Billion livestock animals consumed a year in America are chicken. Millions of hectares of crop land and ever diminishing reserves of precious water is predominantly used to produce livestock feed. If those croplands were instead used for produce for humans instead of livestock, we could end world hunger. We don’t need the grasslands, in which the wild mustangs and prairie dogs are currently killed as pests, for cattleman lease our public lands for cattle. In America alone, 70% of the corn, 80% of the soy and 90% of the oats are fed to LIVESTOCK! And this is GMO corn and soy! Monsonto doesn't care how safe their product is "That's the FDA's job" to ensure.

Point Two: Absurd. Other wildlife that used to roam on these lands before being displaced by "LIVESTOCK".

Point Three: Absurd and Dangerous. These items could be composted back into the soil, they shouldn't be fed to animals- this is a large part of why livestock are diseased- example- cattle with mad cow.

Point Four: It is becoming clear that you have a deficit in knowledge of human nutrition and are clinging to the mythology that is continually perpetuated amongst those in support of animal exploitation. The reports you clearly need to read for background into how livestock is the leading cause of erosion, desertification, biodiversity extinction, water, air and soil pollution and how eating lower on the food chain via plant based diet not only is less intensive and polluting on the environment, it feeds more people, is healthier is preventing and reversing the leading causes of death are:

Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production Report: Putting Meat on the Table
http://bit.ly/4DbSPd

UN Dept of Food and Agriculture Report: Livestock’s Long Shadow
http://bit.ly/NRD34

ADA Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets
http://bit.ly/4NnTR

Point Five: Clearly your opinion is not shared or evidenced by the scientific health community as noted above by the American Dietetic Association's position paper on vegetarian diets above. Read T Collin Campbell, PhD Emeritus Professor at Cornell University, who was a dairy farmer and conducted the longest human nutrition study now advocates against animal protein, especially dairy, in his book The China Study.

Point Six: Irrelevant. These methods are not proven to be healthy or sustainable and are a leading cause for water and soil pollution and degradation as well a significant use of petroleum. The majority of those crops are not fit for human consumption and people wonder why Cancer is now the 2nd leading cause of death since the 1970s!

Every point you have mad is to justify the continued consumption of animal products, in spite of the current scientific evidence of this insane practice. Scientific proof and social evolution is saying these arguments are nothing more than a transparent effort to cling to old behaviors that are destroying us....

{ from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? }

BobDevine

Someone else more than likely asked this before buy why do we never hear of these things through the regular news sources? Some of it is a continuation of what I learned in school in the 1950s. Do they not teach the same basic science we used to get?

I know these are not comments but I find it really frustrating when I hear all that warming stuff and that we are poisoning the earth. What ever happened to the folks that thought enough to question these extreme views?...

{ from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay }

MegaSkeptic

This is not a belief. Meat is the only product that humans can consume that can give them vitamin B12. There is NO other natural source for B12. Meat is a requirement of the human diet. If one does not eat meat in some form (eggs, fish, beef)then they WILL NOT get the proper amount of B12 unless they take supplements. If supplements are not taken or not available, an individual WILL be deficient in B12. Fact.

http://bit.ly/Pdqaq...

{ from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? }

marklm

Your belief that meat consumption is important to maintaining our health is wrong. There is no amino acid, vitamin, or mineral that can’t be obtained from plants, and plants are 100% cholesterol free. The ADA’s position paper on plant based diets states that vegetarian or vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and can help in the prevention of certain diseases....

{ from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? }

BobArmstrong

Dennis , Since moving out here next to Pike National Forest above Colorado Springs in 2005 from Manhattan , largely thanks to my sister who is an animal nut , I've experienced the cycle of life and death on a retail level uncomprehended in NYC . When I first came out she had chickens and roosters , a turkey , a pair of pea fowl , and ducks . And horses , and parrots and dogs and cats . Creatures coming up from out of the woods , and occasionally a new dog , reduced the fowl down to 3 ducks . The remaining female and her sons inbred back to about 10 ducks which declined back down to about 5 at which point my sister saw a deal on Craigslist for 10 free ducks from Denver's parks . We're now back down 10 total and haven't had any ducklings survive more than a few days this year . I think these duck tales sufficiently illustrate that I know where you're coming from , and don't need to get into the lives and deaths of various dogs and cats and horses - and a parrot .

There are some pix of the menagerie here on my http://www.cosy.com/home.htm .

Every night when I herd the ducks back into the barn , I feel like an accomplice to duck rape . I never expected to learn what human sized testicles male ducks have . They are never not horny .You can tell the females by the plucked , scabbed backs of their necks .

Even before I moved out here , I proposed that we need a constitutional amendment that nobody living in a metropolitan area of more than a half million can have any vote in what people in rural areas do with their resources . City folk are too arrogantly ignorant to have a voice ....

{ from In praise of cages for egg laying hens }

CFACTUser

This is another test....

{ from Global warming bait-and-switch }

astralis

Test....

{ from Global warming bait-and-switch }

CFACTUser

Test comment....

{ from Voters voice support for biotech farming }

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.