Investment and other financial matters

Packing Heat – The Fraud of The Global Warming Cult

Packing Heat – The Fraud of The Global Warming Cult

By Peter Ferrara on 9.7.11 @ 6:07AM

The theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic

global warming is not science. It is politics, driven by special

interests with ideological, political and economic stakes in the


For environmentalists, global warming corresponds with the

authoritarian goal at the core of their movement: repeal of the

industrial revolution (which President Obama’s EPA has begun to

implement). For governments, it presents an opportunity to vastly

expand their power and control through taxes, regulation and


The theory also presents an opportunity for the United Nations to

vastly expand its power and control. As an organization of world

governments who would also gain enormously from acceptance of the

theory, the UN is doubly corrupted as an honest broker on the issue.

Yet, perversely, governments

across the globe have delegated authoritative inquiry on the

issue to the UN through its Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC).

Wily environmentalists have also successfully weaved

economic stakes in the theory for some in the business community,

starting with tens of billions — growing into

hundreds of billions — of government subsidies for

businesses that will pose as potential producers of the

"green energy of tomorrow." This enables wily politicians to attempt

to snooker voters with promises of "green jobs." Of course, those jobs

would only become available if self-supporting producers of abundant

low cost energy are replaced with an entire "green" industry that can

survive on corporate welfare while producing unreliable high cost


for the economy (resulting in job loss and a  decline in

America’s standard of living).

What is so shocking is the way formerly objective, reliable Western

science has been seduced by all these interests into intellectual

corruption in service of the global warming fraud (less shocking when

you consider the tens of billions in "research" funding provided by

the above special interests).

But don’t forget that scientists live and breathe in the far left

environment of the academic world. Thus, many of

them have social and ideological interests in advancing the global

warming charade.

The confluence of all these special interests and their money has now

corrupted the broader scientific community. Formerly venerable,

objective, respected scientific bodies such as the National Academy of

Sciences have been taken over by politicians in scientific drag.

Formerly independent scientific journals and publications have gone

the same route rather than suffer the social and financial opprobrium

that service to the truth will entail.

This growing intellectual corruption is greatly magnified by our

thoroughly politicized Old Media, which operates today only in service

of politically correct causes. Consequently, so much of the public

discussion on global warming that we see is actually "play acting,"

with supposed scientists, journalists, media commentators, politicians

and others posing as if objective science actually demonstrates the

danger Oscar for his role in posing as savior of the planet, which

actually reflects

delusional mental illness in the man who almost became our president.

But the politicization of Western science means the decline of Western

science as well. That in turn augurs the decline of Western

civilization, as objective science was a foundation of the rise of the

West for centuries.

Climate Change Reconsidered

But real, objective science continues to flourish at little noticed

work stations, offices, and independent institutes and foundations

across the globe. The budding international headquarters of this

worldwide counterrevolution has now flowered at the Chicago based

Heartland Institute, which

bravely soldiered on in devotion to real climate science when even

compatriots told them objectivity on this issue was a

lost cause.

In 2009, Heartland published the 858-page Climate Change Reconsidered,

a comprehensive, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific refutation of

the theory that human activity is

causing global warming. That served as the first answer to the

quadrennial Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. No one is

knowledgeable about the true scientific debate over global warming

until they have read and analyzed this thorough publication. Play

acting commentators should be challenged for their response to this

report, and publicly dismissed if they have none.

On August 29, Heartland released a 400-page follow up report titled

Climate Change Reconsidered, reflecting the same thorough, objective,

dispassionate analysis of the theory of global warming, and updating

the science and developments. Heartland will continue the pattern of

presenting full scientific alternatives to the UN’s IPCC Assessment

Reports (AR), planning to produce another full report in 2013 when the

next IPCC AR is expected. Heartland has also sponsored

annual international scientific conferences on climate change, several

of which I have attended.

Hundreds of scientists from across the planet are now speaking out in

opposition to the corruption of climate science. Among them are Fred

Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University

of Virginia, and the founder and first Director of the National

Weather Satellite Service; Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor

of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Roy


Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at

Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument

flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite; William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett

Professor of Physics at Princeton University; Syun-ichi Akasofu,

Professor of Physics and

former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the

University of Alaska; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of

Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and past

President of the American Association of State Climatogists; and David

Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester. Physics

icon Freeman Dyson expressed similar skepticism in the New York Times.

These scientists are as good and as credentialed as any working on the

UN’s IPCC Assessment reports.

The just released Interim Report concludes that "natural causes are

very likely to be the dominant cause of the climate change that took

place in the twentieth and the start of the twenty-first centuries. We

are not saying that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot

produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that

the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role."

The authors add, "the net effect of continued warming and    rising

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is

most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife."

The Evidence Shows

The theory of global warming holds that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other

greenhouse gases produced by human civilization collect in the

atmosphere. They let radiation from the sun in, but like a greenhouse

they prevent the radiation from escaping back out, leading

temperatures to increase, potentially to catastrophic levels. Humans

cause CO2 emissions primarily by burning fossil fuels like oil, coal,

natural gas, and wood, which was the foundation of the industrial


But the established temperature record from the official sources is

not consistent with this theory. Throughout the 20th century and into

the 21st, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continually

increased, yet temperatures did not steadily increase. Surface

temperatures in the U.S. were warmer in the 1930s than they are today.

From 1940 to the late 1970s, U.S. surface temperatures declined,

despite all the increased

burning of fossil fuels during that period, leaving no significant

difference at that point from 1900. This decline actually

prompted speculation at the time that a new ice age was coming.

Surface temperatures then increased until the

unrelated El Nino weather phenomenon in 1998, sponsoring the global

warming hysteria. Since 1998, surface temperatures have actually

declined again.

More reliable and relevant is the satellite data on global atmospheric

temperatures, which is not distorted by the

location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land based weather

stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and

Europe), and covers the whole planet. The satellite data starts

in 1979, and shows no increase in global temperature trends

until 1998, when El Nino caused a sharp temperature spike. Since then

the satellite data again shows that global atmospheric temperatures

have declined.

If supposed greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, then

we should have seen a far more steady increase in temperatures. What

the objective scientists are now saying is that this up and down

pattern of temperature is far more consistent with natural causes. The

temperature variation patterns follow variations in solar activity

(like sunspots) and major ocean current temperature trends. For

example, a major

influence on global temperatures is what is known as the

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which turns from warm to cold and

back every 20 to 30 years, as cold water from deep

in the ocean cycles up and is warmed by the sun. This PDO variation

seems to follow closely with the actual temperature variation trends.

Global temperatures were also warmer than today during the Medieval

Warm Period, a period of several hundred years around 1000 A.D, when

now icy Greenland was named and actually farmed by settlers (who long

since fled as the cold and ice advanced). Even higher temperatures

prevailed during

a period known as the

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

One Response to “Packing Heat – The Fraud of The Global Warming Cult”

  1. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:

    >[Aussie coal lobby spin]

    U.S. sweltered through the hottest summer in 75 years

    Doyle Rice


    Sep  8 2011

    The USA just endured its hottest summer in 75 y and the second-hottest

    summer on record, according to data released Thu afternoon by the National

    Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

    The average US temperature during the summer of 2011 was 74.5 degrees, which

    was 2.4 degrees above the long-term (1901-2000) average.  Only the Dust Bowl y

    of 1936, at 74.6 degrees, was warmer.

    Four states — Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana — had their

    warmest summer ever recorded, the climate center also reported.  

    BLOG: Report links extreme weather events to global warming

    Average temperatures for the summer in Texas and Oklahoma, at 86.8 degrees and

    86.5 degrees, respectively, exceeded the previous statewide average

    temperature record for any state during any season.

    Texas also suffered through its driest summer on record. The state is in the

    midst of its worst drought since the 1950s. More than 81% of the state is

    listed as experiencing extreme drought, the worst category, according to Thu’s

    US Drought Monitor.

    The drought monitor also reported that a 3rd of the contiguous USA is

    currently in a drought.

    A total of 15 states in the S and E sweltered through one of their top 10

    warmest summers on record.

    " Based on a government index using residential energy demand as an indicator

    of temperature, "the contiguous US temperature-related energy demand was 22.3%

    above average during summer," the climate center noted in an online

    report. "This is the largest such value during the index’s period of record,

    which dates to 1895."

    On the flip side, 2 states — Oregon and Washington — had a cooler than

    average summer, while California had its wettest summer on record.

    U.S. climate data go back to 1895. The climate center defines summer as June

    1-Aug. 31. It will release global temperature data for the summer of 2011 next w


    MYREF: 20110909110002 msg2011090932646

    [236 more news items]

    [Before the flood:]

    The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
    enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.

    Instead it has all run out to sea!

    Crazy anti-dam greenies!

     – "BONZO"@ [daily nymshifter], 12 Nov 2010 14:05 +1100