Saturday, November 20, 2010

Warming Hoax ... Cooling

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. Pro. 26:12

Dr. Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
(that's 15 years of hidden cooling ... by promoting phony science)
Recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.

Climate change no longer scary in Europe by Hans Labohm

Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film makes it obvious that the fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.

For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.

But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.

In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media. However, skepticism about man-made climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.

In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.

Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.

Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.

The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe's performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union's greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”

On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.

What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!

Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.

The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.

All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.

Hans Labohm has served in many international roles, including Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the OECD.

My friends: After challenging this phony science for years as a hoax, it is encouraging to hear that the facts are finally forcing some environmentalists to back down. The problem is that many politicians and citizens have been brainwashed with this babble in the same way they have been programed with atheistic evolutionary doctrine. In California, the ignorant voters just followed the lead of the ignorant governor and passed a bill to institute global warming legislation. The old ... newly elected "governor moonbeam" has promised to create more green jobs. Whoopee doo ... but first he needs to define what a green job is though. Oh no ... census taker jobs won't be available again for another 10 years. This will only force more employers to relocate to a more job friendly state. Where is California headed? ... 25% unemployment! The likely solutions: federal bailout; bankruptcy; or both. I am ashamed of the example of foolishness that my state has become. The downward spiral will surely draw California into the abyss. Bob

A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
God bless you my friends, Bob


  1. Bob, this is a very interesting post, reconfirming what I have considered to be mass media hype for several years. Remember how the world was going to end in the Y2000 hype? It's like throwing a bone to a pack of dogs. Each one will feed on it, not being sure if it is rotten or not.
    Have a great weekend

  2. Your blog, and your data are totally fallacious- there is NO scientific validity to your assertions- be it data or observations.

    I suggest you see photographs of the arctic in 1979- when the C02 level was under 350ppv

    and see the arctic in 2006-2010 and see a 30-40% reduction in ice extent- as CO2 levels climbed over 380ppmv.

    Its science not politics or economic gain- something your blog falls very short of.

  3. Peter:

    I have heard premise that peer reviewed science conclusions are the only facts we can believe for many years. I assume that you have not heard the story of the fox guarding the hen-house. If you think trillions of dollars being transferred to warming research and programs as well as environmentalist goals and plans is not enough of a carrot to entice researchers to cook the books ... you are very naive.

    Sure there are periods of warming and cooling. That has never been a point of debate. The hoax is that warming trends are caused by man-made CO2; and that it will destroy our world; and that the scientific evidence supports this false premise.

    The fact that you and other environmentalists are in denial of the real evidence comes as no great surprise. We can't have the facts slowing down the transfer of the world's wealth, and the implementation of your environmental plans ... now, can we?

    The problem is that you and others blindly and religiously follow the biased and falsified results of this supposed science.

    The scientist quoted above: Dr. Phil Jones ... is one of the men who did the accepted research and was one of the scientific bookkeepers of the evidence and was caught fixing the data to support the global warming premise. He discussed the crime and cover up of this fraud in his emails.

    All credible scientists with questions or conclusions contrary to the global warming CO2 agenda hoax are censored and silenced so that their evidence and conclusions will be discredited and not be seen by the public.

    Why would renowned scientists do this evil? that's easy ... to meet environmental goals and to transfer trillions to those who support the fulfillment of these goals, and to fund more research that will make algore and the scientists billionaires.

    This not only false science and a gross deception, but an evil atheistic plan.

    These lies and evil plans will be exposed!

    Trust Jesus!

    He is your only hope ... not science.

    all the best, Bob