Showing posts with label Climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate. Show all posts

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Oil from Dead Plastic Cats

 
Oops. The headline should have read: "Oil from Plastic and Dead Cats." Newsbusters provides a link to a New Scientist article that demonstrates some of the finer aspects of capitalism. A U.S. company is selling a microwave-based device that can convert plastic back into oil. But don't bother searching the mainstream media for news of this discovery. They're too -er- busy.

A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas... All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers).


Key to GRC’s process is a machine that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials. As the material is zapped at the appropriate wavelength, part of the hydrocarbons that make up the plastic and rubber in the material are broken down into diesel oil and combustible gas... GRC's machine is called the Hawk-10...

"Anything that has a hydrocarbon base will be affected by our process," says Jerry Meddick, director of business development at GRC, based in New Jersey... "Take a piece of copper wiring... It is encased in plastic – a kind of hydrocarbon material. We release all the hydrocarbons, which strips the casing off the wire." Not only does the process produce fuel in the form of oil and gas, it also makes it easier to extract the copper wire for recycling.

Similarly, running 9.1 kilograms of ground-up tyres through the Hawk-10 produces 4.54 litres of diesel oil, 1.42 cubic metres of combustible gas, 1 kg of steel and 3.40 kg of carbon black...

In related news, recycling may have hit paydirt, if you will, as a German inventor has discovered a way to turn dead cats into diesel fuel:

A German inventor says he's found a way to make cheap diesel fuel out of dead cats... Dr Christian Koch... said his method uses old tyres, weeds and animal cadavers... They are heated up to 300 Celsius to filter out hydrocarbon which is then turned into diesel by a catalytic converter.


He said the resulting "high quality bio-diesel" costs just 15 pence per litre... Koch said the cadaver of a fully grown cat can produce 2.5 litres of fuel - meaning around 20 cats are needed for a full tank.

He said: "I tank my car with my own diesel mixture and have driven it for 105,000 miles without any problems."

Hey, no one get any ideas! Our cat ain't dead yet!

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Clean Water from Thin Air

 
It's not alchemy, but an architect at Technion University (Haifa, Israel) and his colleague have created a low-tech method for creating fresh water from thin air. The invention recently won an international competition, which reviewed methods for manufacturing safe drinking water.

Grad student Joseph Cory and his colleague Eyal Malka invented "WatAir," an array of mesh panels organized as inverted pyramids. The devices collect dew from the air and transforms it into clean water in nearly any climate.

Inhabit reports:

...With an estimated 5,000 children dying daily due to dirty drinking water, Joseph Cory and Eyal Malka’s award-winning WatAir design for Arup and WaterAid’s drawn water challenge might be the response barren landscapes are looking for. Simply described, WatAir produces water from the air through its inverted pyramid array of panels. Inspired by spiderwebs and the dew-catching properties of leaves, WatAir is easy to incorporate into both rural and urban landscapes due to its relatively small footprint.

Arup’s and WaterAid’s drawing water challenge launched in September of 2006 as an ideas competition seeking innovative ways to “help many more people gain access to safe water and effective sanitation.” Over 91 entrants responded from 19 countries across North America, with WatAir taking away the grand prize. Each WatAir unit features 96 square meters of lightweight dew-collecting panels that gravitationally funnel moisture from the air to one collective source. The designers estimate that each unit can collect roughly 48 liters of water in remote places or places that do not have any clean water sources. The panels are flexible, easy to collapse when not in use, and readily available to provide shade and even some shelter...

Well done, gentlemen!

Monday, June 04, 2007

The Case of the Vanishing Consensus

 
Canada's National Post features a must-read series on climate change. Put simply, Al Gore's "consensus" on anthropogenic warming is as controversial among scientists as the big-bang theory:

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."


So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated...

Financial Post: They call this a consensus?

Monday, May 28, 2007

Gore: Volcanoes must purchase Carbon Offsets

 
Volcanoes are immense polluters of the environment and should be required to adhere to the same rules that will be levied upon humans, according to climatologist Albert Gore, Jr.

"Volcanoes -- which are responsible for releasing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere -- can no longer expect a 'free ride' when it comes to climate change," said Albert Gore, Jr. The author, moviemaker, meteorologist, and retired politician has extended his Carbon Offset advocacy to natural -- and not just man-made -- events.

According to the United States Geological Survey, active volcanoes release more than 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

Several active volcanoes did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Al Gore at the Marin Civic Center

 
LGF operative Zombietime paid a surreptitious visit to San Rafael, California. The occasion: an Al Gore appearance at the Marin Civic Center. The Internet's inventor was there for a speech and to shill his new book. His talk -- to around 2,000 rapt global-warming cultists -- centered on the usual topics of climate change and the human causation thereof.

I wonder if anyone asked Al Gore's about his global warming junk bonds --er-- I mean, carbon offsets?

Or if anyone asked Gore why he isn't visiting China and Iran to complain about their emissions controls, since around a half million people die annually from pollution in those countries?

Zombie's photo essay also captured the parking lot, which featured a vast array of luxury SUVs, trucks, vans, and sedans.

Go green!

Zombie also held a contest called Al Gore's Secret Message; entrants modified the cover of Gore's book. My entry is above, but it appears that it arrived too late to make it into the final mix.

See: Al Gore at the Marin Civic Center.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

News flash: the Sun is a major cause of Global Warming

 
Science website Space.com highlights what many scientists have been saying for years (while being completely ignored by Al Gore and the mainstream media). That is, solar cycles are responsible for significant percentages of -- if not all -- measurable global warming activity.


Shhhh... no one tell the IPCC. This revelation might interfere with the UN's global warming bunko scam and Al Gore's burgeoning Carbon Offset business.

Hat tip: the Astute Bloggers

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Don Surber, Walter Williams tag-team Al Gore and Tom Teepen

 
Al Gore has gotten huge lately. And I don't mean just physically. Sure, he may in fact be visible from space, but more importantly, a grass-roots presidential campaign has emerged in recent months. The "Draft Gore 2008" campaign is a touch comical given his recent efforts to take commercial advantage of the publicity surrounding climate change.


The 'draft Gore' exertions highlight a certain blissful naivety (note: I restrained myself and didn't say "gullibility" this time) present in certain segments of the electorate.

Why do I consider these well-meaning citizens naive? First, consider that Gore's 10,000-square foot Nashville estate consumes roughly $2,400 a month in gas and electric bills, including $500 a month for the pool-house. Gore also has two additional homes including a 4,000 square foot Arlington, Virginia mansion. And, while promoting his recent movie, Gore traveled in private jets rather than on commercial flights. So, when it comes to personal sacrifice, Gore isn't exactly making himself an eco-martyr.


Then there are the facts behind global warming itself. In a recent op-ed, the brilliant Walter Williams shredded the "science" surrounding the human causation of climate change. Put simply, the assertion that we can control the Earth's temperature dials by suppressing industrial economies is the modern-day equivalent of alchemy, only without the intellectual rigor.

About 65 million years ago, the Earth experienced one of the most rapid and extreme global climate changes recorded in geologic history. The period has been named the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum." The ocean was 18 to 27 degrees hotter than it is today. Antarctica, which is today's coldest place on Earth, was home to temperate forests, beech trees and ferns. The Earth had no permanent polar ice caps.

In the past 65 million years, the Earth's temperature has increased and decreased with no help from mankind. My questions to the anti-climate change warriors are: Can mankind really stop climate change, and what is the "correct" Earth temperature? [Ed: emphasis mine]

Don Surber notes several little-publicized events in which scientists increasingly question Gore's eco-hysteria using -- who'd have thunk it? -- science, as opposed to YouTube videos of glaciers collapsing into the sea.

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week... Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

“We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said.


[...and...]

Major cuts in carbon emissions would hurt the nation’s economy and provide little or no environmental benefit, a top hurricane predictor said Friday... And there’s scant evidence that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect hurricane power or frequency, professor William Gray told an audience Friday, the final day of the Governor’s Hurricane Conference in Fort Lauderdale.

But Oscar-winning expert Al Gore said penguins are walking across the Sahara...

Augie Auer said carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2% of that, hence only 0.12% of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066%, 0.047% and 0.046% respectively.

And we’re going to waste trillions of dollars worrying about that 0.12%? Especially when the actual cause of Earth’s temperature fluctations is the Sun’s own temperature fluctuations?

Never one to let the facts get in the way of a business opportunity, Al Gore continues to shill for shutting down industrial capacity and for increasing the size of the "carbon-offset" market.


Carbon offsets are, of course, the so-called 'currency' that allows polluters to make up for their emissions. What Gore isn't telling you is that a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists -- on the left, mind you -- believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse. In fact, whenever I hear the term, I catch the distinct whiff of a junk-bond scheme, only updated for the era of eco-hysterics.


Of course, a little science never stopped Democratic party public relations hacks -- er, I mean op-ed columnists -- like Tom Teepen from slamming the GOP. In a series of columns, Teepen pilloried three GOP presidential non-contenders (Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo -- quick, name their home states!) for questioning Darwin's theory of evolution.

So far has the Republican Party fallen into a sink of anti-intellectualism. Indeed, into fantasy. One doesn't believe in or not believe in evolution, any more than one believes or not in physics...

Republicans, as a party, have moved a broad contempt for science toward the center of their vaunted "values..."

Teepen, Democratic party shill that he is, can't see the hypocrisy that oozes from every pore. Al Gore and his merry band of eco-marketers have used every tactic imaginable to silence the scientists who question his climate change campaign and carbon offset rhetoric.


Instead, Gore and his PR hacks have run rough-shod over any scientists who point to history and question the advisability of destroying the global economy to enrich the carbon offset marketeers. Don't look for a column on this topic any time soon from the likes of Teepen, Dowd, and Cohen.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

The Essential Global Warming Quiz

 
Be sure and send the following link to all of your gullible truth-seeking friends who saw An Inconvenient Truth and who now drive Priuses: Global Warming Quiz.

Hat tip: Sean E.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Do not taunt your Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)

 
Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker offers several key insights into the eco-friendly lighting frenzy called CFL. CFL stands for Compact Fluorescent Lamp. CFLs are designed to replace normal incandescent lamps but require less energy: roughly $30 worth over the lamp's lifetime.


Modern CFLs are supposed to last between 8,000 and 15,000 hours, as opposed to incandescent lamps that typically last around 1,000 hours. Thomas' experience, though, hasn't quite lived up to the hype:

* Four or five of his CFL bulbs have lasted less than a year (four hours a day for 365 days a year is less than 1,500 hours)
* Each CFL bulb contains 4-5 milligrams of mercury, not a huge amount, but sufficient to warrant special handling and disposal methods
* Thomas' hometown of Berkeley requires that CFL's not be disposed of in the trash, but must instead be taken to a community recycling center
* Ed Waage points out that over 15,000,000 fluorescent lamps were sold in California in 2001. Survey results indicate less than half a percent were recycled. This means that almost all fifteen million mercury missiles (as I like to call them) were probably disposed of in the trash... and are now leeching mercury into the ground or atmosphere.


Not to worry, though. If you happen to break a CFL, the U.S. Government has published a handy CFL recycling fact sheet (in PDF format, so you can presumably tape it to your refrigerator) that includes the following sage advice:

What precautions should I take when using CFLs in my home?
CFLs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled ..

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
* Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
* Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
* Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
* Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
* If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
* Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

Roughly translated, cleanup after a CFL bulb breaks is: (a) evacuate the house for a while, and then (b) clean up while wearing a traditional hazmat suit. Yes, it's... just... that... simple.

It reminds me of a Super Happy Fun Ball, updated for the Al Gore era of eco-hysteria.

Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.

Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.

Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which if exposed due to rupture should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.


Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:

* Itching
* Vertigo
* Dizziness
* Tingling in extremities
* Loss of balance or coordination
* Slurred speech
* Temporary blindness
* Profuse Sweating
or
* Heart palpitations

If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head. Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin. When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration.

Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability...

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Remember: Do not taunt your Compact Fluorescent Lamp.

Hat tip: Larwyn

Sunday, May 13, 2007

The Obama-mobile: hypocrisy in shades of green

 
Democratic presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama recently pilloried U.S. automakers for their resistance to increased fuel efficiency requirements. Speaking in Detroit, Obama proclaimed that the auto companies had not met the challenge:

[he] delivered a stern message to Detroit auto companies on Monday, saying they had done little to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and needed to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicles... While the American standard for cars has not increased in the last 20 years, both China and Japan have higher standards, Mr. Obama said. He maintained that cars in Japan typically achieved the equivalent of 45 miles per gallon. [Ed: debunked here]... In fact, the average fuel economy in 2006 for cars sold by all manufacturers in the United States was slightly more than 30 miles per gallon, higher than the federal standard requires...

Obama also failed to mention that his own vehicle is a 340-horsepower behemoth and not exactly a model for fuel efficiency.


This is not a picture of Obama's 300C; his car may, in fact, have a green exterior

The Detroit Free Press reports that Obama's vehicle says a lot about the candidate:

...his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama's choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters...

Obama's mindset is standard fare for the hypocritical "semi-green" Democrats. Never mind that the Democratic candidates rely upon a vast fleet of private jets, which are used as taxis. Just ignore the fact that the electric bill for Al Gore's mansion is $2,400 a month (including $500 a month for the pool house).

It's the typical Democratric mantra: "one set of rules for us, another set of rules for all of the little people."

More and more Americans are wising up to their ridiculous double-standards. Their pratfalls would almost be humorous were they not so utterly two-faced.

Hat tips: Blue Crab Boulevard and Larwyn

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Frivolous vs. Magnanimous: Intelligence

 
Frivolous: The 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill is headed to a House vote within the next week or two. If it is signed into law, it will direct our intelligence agencies to turn away from fighting terrorism, rooting out spies, and gathering national security intelligence. Instead, it will require agencies to engage in a 30-year projection of the effects of... climate change.

Willfully ignoring 9/11, the plot to destroy UK airliners over American cities with liquid bombs, and the recent Fort Dix conspiracy, Democrats intead call for the study of climate change. The Junior Party is willing to divert our most valuable intelligence resources from their anti-terrorism efforts for reasons that are unserious -- at best.


What could be the true motivation for wasting our intelligence resources in such an egregious fashion? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps George Soros knows the answer.

Magnanimous: Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) offered his perspective of the fatally flawed Intelligence bill in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required). Put simply, the Democrats under the Clinton administration have gone down this road before.

Clinton's first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, directed intelligence agencies to devote equal efforts to "environmental concerns and national security." The result was an outrageous waste of resources as intelligence analysts reported upon schools of fish and volcano activity. In the mean time, the Jihadi terrorist threat grew, inexorably and remorselessly, under the Clinton administration's watch.


In August of 1996, Osama Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War against the Americans while Al Gore was presumably examining Excel spreadsheets detailing air pollution data. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri reiterated his intent to use Iraq as a base of operations for further attacks against the West. Some things never change.

Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were too busy measuring the tidal surge to respond.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Cowbung Offsets help fight global warming

 
The Sun reports that European governments are doing their part to curb global warming. British members of Parliament have asked the European Commission to examine, "the livestock question in direct connection with global warming":

The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to capture gas emissions and recycle manure...

They warned: "The livestock sector presents the greatest threat to the planet."

Al Gore's new invention -- the Cow-Cork™ -- promises to help address the problem. The Cow-Cork can capture an entire day's worth of cow emissions in a compact, cost-effective form-factor.


However, the splinter group called People Against the Slavish Subjugation of Germs, Animals, and Stones (or PASS-GAS, for short) are protesting the plan. They claim that the act of capturing and harnessing innocent animals' air biscuits is a fundamental violation of their rights.

PASS-GAS spokesperson Flower Moonbeam stated that, "these animals don't launch 'trouser trumpets' voluntarily. They may rattle a few windows from time to time and sound a 'cheek flapper' on occasion. But let's be fair. They're not inside the house blasting 'floorboard lifters' or sealing the car windows in pursuit of a 'rolling Dutch Oven'.

We therefore believe that humans should buy Cowbung offsets, the livestock equivalent of Carbon Offsets. Animals should break free, like the wind. And people everywhere can help, simply through their purchase of Cowbung offsets, which are on sale now at Cowbunga.com."

Al Gore was unavailable for comment at press time.


Oven-baked good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Anchoress, Barking Moonbat, Bullwinkle Blog, Burning Toast, ChuckerCanuck, Common Sense and Wonder, Conservative Common Man, Ewticycle, Hot Air, Needs of the Many, Sweet Jazzy Cat, TFS Magnum, Town Crank

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Lewis Black on Hollywood Enviro-frauds

 

This clip from Comedy Central is an instant classic (hat tip: Newsbusters).

Al Gore in concert

 
The Earth has got a fever and the only cure is more cowbell. Or maybe some carbon offsets, which will do about as much good as the cowbell.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Al Gore's latest plan to combat Global Warming



Ha. Ah'm Al Gore. As you know, it's gettin' hotter than hell around here.


That's why I've been telling y'all about global warming.


Skeptics will tell you that because the Earth exists in the Sun's "atmosphere," solar cycles are responsible for warming the Earth.


Let me assure you that is utter propaganda designed to damage my --er-- the world's investment in carbon offsets.


I'll admit, though, that the Sun is playing a minor role, a very minor role -- after humans, of course -- in warming the Earth.


But one of my inventions -- no, it's not the Internet, silly! -- may be able to solve the problem.


I'm talking Gore-Tex™, my miraculous invention made of recycled Llama hair and space-age petroleum byproducts.


I've devised a plan to use Gore-Tex to shield the Earth from the Sun's harmful rays.


Think of it as a pair of Ray-Bans™ for our beloved Earth Goddess Gaia.


With my new foundation, Al Gore's Mission to the Sun, we're planning on a space-shuttle launch to deploy an enormous Gore-Tex shield that can protect the Earth from getting metaphorical skin cancer.

With its adjustable filtering, we can change it from a "sunblock level" -- scientists call this an SPF factor -- 30 to SPF 3. This will have a dramatic impact on global warming, along with outlawing cars.


The UN and the IPCC are telling me this idea is sheer genius. That's why I'm asking for your help.


We're looking for your contributions. Anything you can spare, be it $500, $100, $20, or even some carbon offsets... anything you have would be greatly appreciated.


Visit AlGoreMissionToTheSun.com or call 1-888-555-GOREIFY for more information or to contribute.


And, pass the Mint Julep, will ya, Tipper? It's gettin' steamy in here!

Saturday, April 07, 2007

The UN's IPCC Global-Warming Bunko Scam


The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report on global warming with a massive publicity blitz. The New York Times breathlessly announced an impending disaster due to man's catastrophic treatment of the environment:


...[a temperature rise] of 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century could lead to the inundation of coasts and islands inhabited by hundreds of millions of people...

...While the report said that assessing the causes of regional climate and biological changes was particularly difficult, the authors concluded with “high confidence” — about an 8 in 10 chance — that human-caused warming “over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems...”

The Times waits until paragraph 28 to announce that the 21-page report summary was the subject of much debate. There was no unanimity and the summary itself represented the product of serious negotiation:

The meeting dragged on in a marathon session through the night before Dr. Pachaui emerged this morning to stand on a blue armchair and announce to reporters that an agreement had been reached between scientists and government officials over the final details... Officials from [several] countries argued that data in the report did not support the level of certainty expressed in the final draft...

Skeptical scientists


Indeed: government officials play a central role in the IPCC, refining and interpreting the science... for the scientists.


And when respected scientists do decry the hysterical posturing of the IPCC, the media does its best to shield it from criticism. Powerline highlights one of many scientists critical of the fear-mongering who spoke with the AP:

Yesterday, ...one of the world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview...

As we have noted elsewhere, the U.N.'s IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and its findings have been subject to withering criticism. But the AP implies that the U.N's report represents a scientific consensus:

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

[The AP positions Gray as an] elderly crank who "rails" and disagrees with the U.N. is not part of "mainstream thinking," notwithstanding the fact that, as the AP acknowledges, he is the world's foremost authority on hurricanes...

This would be entirely typical for scientists who dare to defy the UN and IPCC bureaucracies.


MIT's Richard S. Lindzen, one of the world's foremost experts on climatology, pilloried Al Gore last year:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse...

...given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade. [And] there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition...

Dr. Claude Allegre is another example. Twenty years ago, Allegre raised the possibility that burning fossil fuels could result in an increase in mean global temperature. However:

Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations [IPCC] have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank...

In fact, many scientists have pinned "global warming" on solar activity.

"It's the sun, stupid!"


After all, Earth lies within the scope of the Sun's 'atmosphere':


...The observed global warming may be explained by increased solar activity, the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the sun's output or by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki et al. (2004 - Max Planck Institute, Germany) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years...

In fact, Mars is suffering from its own fever:

[Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory] -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839... Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.


"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions...

Given this wide range of respected scientists -- climatologists, astronomers, and environmentalists -- who question "human causality" of global warming, why would the IPCC be so anxious to promote its agenda of fear-mongering?

The answer is simple: money.


Recall that the IPCC is "a political body and not a scientific panel." It has commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. In fact, a great many scientific livelihoods rest upon the promotion of the IPCC's curriculum.

But that's only the beginning of the story.

The Carbon-Offset Market: "Fraudulent" and "Fictitious"


A set of meetings in March ("The Vienna Energy Efficiency and Climate Meetings" - March 19-22, 2007) offers another clue. Much of the discussion related to the growth of the carbon offset market. Panelists represented a variety of companies set to profit from "carbon offseting," including the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), Point Carbon, EDF Trading, Capital Carbon Markets, and Natsource.


Carbon offsets are a currency that supposedly allow organizations and individuals to "make up" (offset) their carbon-dioxide emissions.

What Al Gore and the rest of the IPCC bureaucrats won't tell you is that wanton profiteering appears to be at the very heart of "carbon offsets." Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse.

In a 2001 report, a UK-based environmentalist group called The Corner House labeled the carbon-offseting scheme a "fantasy." And even earlier, in May of 2000, a presentation at the Agrarian Studies 2000 Conference at Yale University denounced the carbon offset market in extremely stark terms:


...This [carbon-offset] market is being put together not so much by states as by a burgeoning international web of technocrats, multilateral agencies, corporate alliances, brokers, lobbyists, consultants, financiers, think tanks, lawyers, forestry companies and non-government organizations...

...the [biological climate-change equivalents, or carbon sequestration credits] commodity to be traded in this new market is fictitious...


The IPCC's Conflict of Interest



In fact, what did IPCC officials do around the time they were finalizing their reports? They formed businesses to take financial advantage of their 'findings'. Among the IPCC panel members set to benefit from earlier IPCC reports on warming were Richard Tipper, Mark Trexler, Pedro Moura-Costa, Careth Phips, Sandra Brown, and Peter Hill. Tipper, for example, formed a consulting company just months after being appointed to one of the UN's climate panels.


The World Rainforest Movement investigated these bizarre financial ties and concluded that the IPCC report "must now be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption."

And solar energy portal Ecotopia reports that members of the IPCC "...had vested interests in reaching unrealistically and unjustifiably optimistic conclusions about the possibility of compensating for emissions with trees... [and] should have been automatically disqualified from serving on an intergovernmental panel charged with investigating impartially the feasibility and benefits of such... projects."

In other words, IPCC members were poised to profit from carbon-profiteering from the very outset of their reporting.

The UN's Circle of Crime


Remember, the IPCC is an arm of the United Nations. That's the same organization that has brought us the multi-billion dollar Oil-for-Food scandal; the slaughter in Darfur; a plethora of anti-Israeli screeds; the Rwandan genocide; accusations of rape and child pornography in the Congo, Haiti, Liberia, and Sudan; and, most recently, ties to a North Korean counterfeiting operation.


Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the IPCC has, as its core membership, businessmen and scientists poised to profit from global warming alarmism. Consider, instead, that the mainstream media ceaselessly flogs the idea that we can trust the same organization that's brought us an unprecedented series of frauds, scandals, scams, and sex schemes.

Our media wants the public to believe that this same corrupt organization can be trusted on its dire predictions of calamity due to man-made global warming?

The media has harped for years on the failure of inadequate intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. But on the issue of global warming, the media tells us there's no need for evidence -- especially from scientists who have no conflict-of-interest with the IPCC and its carbon-offset trading schemes.

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. But based upon what I've read about the IPCC, what I know about its parent organization, and the many critical scientists who are routinely muffled by the mainstream media, I'm wagering that global warming is just another UN-sponsored bunko scam, from the same folks who brought you a world-class set of criminal operations.

Book 'em, Danno.


Oven-baked good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Bill Hobbs (note the title caption), Dan Riehl, Deroy Murdock - Leftist Hate: Gore Fans Threaten Gore Foes
Ace of Spades, Anchoress, Astute Bloggers, Blame Bush, Blue Crab Boulevard, Dinocrat, Don Surber, Dr. Sanity, Ecotality, Fausta's Blog, Flopping Aces, Gateway Pundit, Hedgehog Blog, Life ain't Brain Surgery, Mass Backwards, Outside the Beltway, Right Wing News, STACLU, Texas Rainmaker