Archive for the ‘science’ Category

The Green Movement is After Your Children

July 27, 2009

Don't let the Greens Steal Your Child

Advertisements

Coolest Since 2000

December 16, 2008

Editor:
You have to laugh at the global warming movement – until you realize what they are up to.

The destruction of the industrialized world, depopulation and carbon tax for all is the goal.

Anyway this story says that natural climate is at work – but it’s masking the real threat of global warming.
Another load of bunk from the BBC/UN NWO elitists.

coolest since 2000

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Cows in snowy field

Winter brought unfamiliarly cold weather to large swathes of Europe

The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say.

Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) notes that temperatures remained about 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average.

Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth’s surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels.

Full story at BBC

How NOT to Have Electricity

August 16, 2008

by Alan Caruba

Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

Electricity is so commonplace that no one gives any thought to not having access to it. Few give any consideration to how it is generated, but we are now being inundated with the most virulent nonsense about how wind or solar power is “clean” and practically “free.” Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

The problem for everyone who wants to get rich with these energy sources or those who think they are the answer to our energy needs is that neither wind, nor solar can ever power anything more than relatively small projects like a farm or a local stadium. A nation of more than three hundred million people, however, needs a lot of generation capacity.

All the razzle-dazzle of television advertising and public relations propaganda cannot justify the building of massive wind or solar farms. They are simply inadequate to the production of the electricity the nation requires now and in the future. The weird thing about T. Boone Pickens’ pitch is that he talks about oil dependency to justify wind power, but vehicles are not powered by wind. Nor are they likely to be powered by liquified natural gas as Pickens suggests.

By contrast, the July edition of Energy Tribune devoted some of its pages to the comeback of nuclear power in America. What jumped out at me was co-editor Robert Bryce’s citation of the fact that, “The U.S. government has spent some $7 billion building a repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared that it “is never going to open” and is “not the answer to nuclear waste storage.”

Senator Reid recently said that, “Coal is making us sick. Oil is making us sick,” and then went on to blather insanely about global warming.

According to Bryce, “On June 3, the Department of Energy submitted an 8,600-page application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking approval of the Yucca Mountain site for waste storage. Just one day later, Nevada urged the agency to reject the application.” This is a glaring example of how to make sure America lacks the electrical energy it needs.

Throughout the debate over energy use, the Big Lie has been that industrial and other activities generate carbon dioxide emissions that, in turn, are causing global warming. Ergo, we have to radically alter every aspect of modern life to avoid the Earth’s destruction.

The problem with that is a decade-old cooling period that the Earth entered in 1998 and which is getting colder, not warmer. The other problem is the fact that the Earth has passed through periods in which the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere were much higher than they are today.

Since it is getting colder, we are going to need more electricity and other sources of energy to keep us warm in our homes, offices, schools, et cetera. We are going to have to burn coal, currently the major source of power, to generate electricity as well as the cheapest and most abundant. We will continue to use natural gas as well. All the hydroelectric sources have been identified and are in use at present.

That leaves nuclear. An Energy Tribune article by William E. Burchill serves up lots of information about the nuclear production of electrical energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear reactors are providing electricity to one billion people. Presently nuclear power provides twenty percent of America’s electricity needs, thanks to the 104 nuclear plants operating in the U.S.

Here’s something to keep in mind. “No U.S. plant worker or member of the public has ever been injured or killed by an accident caused by nuclear power.” Moreover, amidst the frenzy over CO2, nuclear is “an emissions-free source of electricity.”

Continue reading article

Wind Turbines Have a Negative Affect On Real Estate Value and Health

August 1, 2008

Premier McGuinty:

You are allowing wind turbines to be placed as close as 350 meters from homes.
This blatant disregard for people and their property must stop immediately.

No more excuses. Your office, and the office of the MOE, has all the information needed to fully  understand the negative impacts of placing wind turbines too close to people and their homes.

The guidelines for wind turbines in Ontario border on criminal. (knowingly putting health at risk and causing loss of equity)

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health said, “that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms“. (If a person has to move to have good health – health risk
Who is going to purchase the property – loss of equity.
Dr. Gemmill
should have added stray voltage – a very real problem and health risk to both people and animals)italic added.

The reality is this.
Nowhere in the world has wind energy ever replaced, or caused the closure, of a fossil fuel plant.
Whether or not the coal plants in Ont. ever close, wind energy will not be the main contributing factor of any such closure.
Wind energy does not do a credible job of reducing emissions. If it did, the papers would be full of stories to that affect, they aren’t.
The main purpose of wind energy is to create carbon credits (e8).

Keeping the lights on and cutting emissions, is how wind energy is promoted in Ont. Neither is a credible statement.

At noon today the 472 MW’s of wind energy were producing – a not very
impressive 32 MW’s. I almost felt compelled to turn off my air conditioner. But then, it’s not my job to ensure we have power when needed, it’s yours, Mr. Premier. 8pm – 29 MWs

Premier McGuinty, if you think this post is harsh, it’s meant to be.

I visited with some more of your “wind farm” victims today.
They have been run out of their homes and had their lives turned upside down. WHY?
I also met with some of your “soon to be victims”.
How many more have to suffer Mr. McGuinty?

Poll Results- Is the Govt. being honest about wind energy (this blog)

  1. Yes – 148
  2. No – 632
  3. Don’t Know – 60

Mr. McGuinty, the citizens and industry in this province require and deserve, a cost effective, stable electrical system.

Build it, or call an election.

Premier McGuinty, if you believe your energy plan will stand up to public scrutiny, lets have a televised debate.
You bring your experts and I’ll bring mine.

I have a feeling the public will have a very different view of wind energy after a good healthy debate, or after reading the article below.

Premier McGuinty, give me a call and lets get on with the televised debate. It’s time the public understands the reality of wind energy in Ontario.

It’s also time they came to grips with the global warming scam. 50 years later – we’re still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

Yours

Ron Stephens

Independent
Huron-Bruce
519-396-1958

Note: I have invited the Ont. Govt., on several occasions, to check this blog for accuracy and to contact me if  they disagree with, or question, the information contained on this blog. Even though the  Ont. Govt. visits this site  often, “site tracker” and I send them information, I have never had the Govt. question or challenge any information concerning wind energy posted here.

Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

The judgement by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal said it was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwelling had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants’ quiet enjoyment of their property.

“The tribunal found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have an effect on the sale price of the appeal dwelling” said the judgement.

Now estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Mr Lang said that the ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms have a negative effect on house prices, and he said that the “victims” have had to rent a house five miles away where they go to sleep.

“It means many families in Scotland living in the shadow of giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build thousands more onshore wind turbines over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

“Jane Davis came up in September last year and gave a moving presentation in Auchtermuchty village hall on the subject of the intrusive, damaging and unpredictable noise from wind turbines.

“Since then she has been continuing in her own campaign and supporting others in the quest to have a safe buffer zone between wind turbines and dwellings.

“Scottish Planning Policy 6 sets out a distance of two kilometres from a village, but ignores the substantial number of dwellings that could be in that zone but not in a village.

“The effect on property prices is obvious and people should not be selectively economically disadvantaged in this way. There are about 30 properties within one kilometre of the EnergieKontor site near Ceres” said Mr Lang.

Gordon Berry

The Courier

full story at Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

Al Gore’s Energy Speech and the Meaning Behind the Words

July 18, 2008

The following is the text of Al Gore’s major energy policy speech given on Thursday, July 17th, 2008.

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes.
Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be
persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a
moment.

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake. I don’t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our

leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of thenational security threat from an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil.

(Afraid Yet?)
The rest of the speech or propaganda here

What are Al Gores friends saying?

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control
.”

Professor Maurice
King

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land
.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!


Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
Prof
Paul Ehrlich
, Stanford University

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world
.”
Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible
.”
United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes.
This is a terrible thing to say.  In order to stabilize world
population,we must eliminate  350,000 people per day. It is a
horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it
.”

Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing
.”
Christopher Manes, Earth First!


Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing
.”

David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Al’s friends talk about Global Warming

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill
.”
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s
imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any
doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

It
doesn’t matter what is true
, it only matters what people believe is true
.”
Paul Watson,
co-founder of
Greenpeace

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong
, we will be doing the right thing in terms
of  economic and environmental policy.

Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis
…”
David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

Al’s friends talk about democracy


The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.


UN Commission on Global Governance report


“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.


Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.

Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to
the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”


Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,


Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance
from local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself
.”
UN
Commission on Global Governance

The Green Agenda

Still worried about CO2?

The UN is using the harmless, necessary to life on earth, gas, to push for NWO. Think your govt. sucks?
Wait until your country is run by the unelected.

Why don’t you get this information from your news sources?

…..”it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the
world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those
years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march
towards a world government …”

– David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media
for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world
government.
Source

If you only read on thing this year, or ever, read and understand The Green Agenda

Enjoy the day-the future looks very intersesting



The History of the Global Warming Scare

July 3, 2008

So why in little more than a decade after the global cooling scare of the mid-1970s was the IPCC certain about human-induced global warming?

In 2004 the United Nations University – World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), published a study into possible scenarios for implementing a global tax. It states: “How can we find an extra US$50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries… Any foreseeable global tax will be introduced, not by a unitary world government, but as the result of concerted action by nation states… The taxation of environmental externalities is an obvious potential source of revenue. … Does this mean that the global tax should be levied at the same rate on all countries? To the extent that emissions impose environmental damage wherever they occur, the corrective tax should be the same. However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income. Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries.” [Ref.26]

This really presents the UN’s view: Unsound science is used by the IPCC to foster “concerted action by nation states” in order to tax CO2 emissions (excluding low-income countries in consideration of “global justice”) and transfer that money to poor countries. They are not actually concerned about the CO2 – just the money: “We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy… Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions, but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may for political or other reasons choose another taxbase.

Another UNU-WIDER publication states: “Support for an international ‘carbon tax’ has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. … Over 20 per cent of the tax yields would originate in the US Distributionally the tax will be regressive, since fuel bills typically form a disproportionately larger portion of the budget of low-income groups as compared to high-income groups.“ So although the only actual carbon-based “damage to the environment” so far is due to deforestation for charcoal and subsistence farming in poor countries, the US will be the major payer, and the American poor will be the worst off as a result.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) [Ref.27] bills itself as “the world’s first and North America’s only voluntary, legally binding integrated greenhouse gas emissions reduction, registry and trading system. … The founder, Chairman and CEO of CCX is economist and financial innovator Dr. Richard L. Sandor, who was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine in 2002 for founding CCX, and in 2007 as the “father of carbon trading.” CCX and the European Climate Exchange (ECX), now the leading exchange operating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme are owned by Climate Exchange Plc, a publicly traded company listed on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange.

CCX directors include Maurice Strong (who is now capitalizing on his UN work to establish a carbon tax), as well as Stuart Eizenstat, who “has held a number of key positions at senior levels in the U.S. Government. During the Clinton Administration he served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (1993-1996), Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (1996-97); Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (1997-99), … [he] was also Chief Domestic Policy Adviser and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff for President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Ambassador Eizenstat played a prominent role in the development of key international initiatives, including and the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, where he led the US delegation.

CCX external advisors include Strong’s cohort Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who is “a former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Before joining UNEP, Ms. Dowdeswell was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. In that capacity she played a leading role in global efforts to negotiate the treaty on climate change adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. She was Canada’s permanent representative to the World Meteorological Organization, principal delegate to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. The connection to the UN goes back to the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit, when Climate Exchange delivered a paper on the “feasibility of a market-based solution to global warming”. [Ref.31]

For more information on CCX and other companies benefiting from the global warming scam, see www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm.

Follow the money – the creators of the phony global warming scare stories have done so for a very lucrative purpose.

In 2007 the World Resources Institute received a $750,000 dollar two-year grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) to “demonstrate the need for a mandatory federal greenhouse gas registry that is consistent with global greenhouse gas accounting standards. Such a registry will provide the foundation for measuring and tracking major emission sources and will be the basis for a federal cap-and-trade program”. According to Joan Spero, president of DDCF “In the immediate term, one of the most important things we can do to combat the threat of climate change is to design and implement the best possible pricing policies for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases”. This is part of DDCF’s $100 million Climate Change Initiative [Ref.30].

In 1990, the United States Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act, which required the administration to report annually on funding for
climate change science. According to a 2005 General Accounting Office report [Ref.28]
, Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004“. The following table is from that report (NOAA is within the Dept. of Commerce).

The federally run U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) coordinates the scientific activities of some 13 federal government agencies and departments [Ref.29]: “Over roughly the past 15 years, the United States has invested heavily in scientific research, monitoring, data management, and assessment for climate change analyses to build a foundation of knowledge for decision making. To date, more than $20 billion of research funding has been provided by U.S. agencies and departments.

Also in 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on the quantity of pollutants the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program. This cap and trade exchange of NOx and SO2 emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise. It was the forerunner of today’s CO2 trading, now taken up by CCX. Enron was a promoter of the Kyoto Protocol since it would increase their profits. Enron’s Ken Lay had meetings with Clinton and Gore to try to get Kyoto promoted: “Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”” [See Ref.34]

At the turn of the 21st century, “California experienced rolling power blackouts, moth-balled power plants that lacked nitrous oxide controls were brought back online, and their owners scrambled for nitrous emission permits for those plants and paid up to 10-fold increases for allowances. … Enron was gaming California’s power market to drive power prices sky high and in turn prices for emissions permits.” [Ref.33]. Will this type of situation happen again with CO2 ?

Senator Dianne Feinstein of Califor­nia has introduced a measure for government oversight as part of the CO2 trading. She said: “This landmark legislation will not only signifi­cantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets – with annual values of approximately $300 billion – are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.” [Ref.32]

The Blood and Gore team (Generation Investment Management, with chairman Al Gore and managing partner David Blood – a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) has purchased almost ten percent of Camco Group [Ref. 35], which, according to the Camco website: “works closely with major companies worldwide, establishing partnerships to turn our clients’ climate change liabilities into economic, social and environmental assets.” Camco Group states: “We generate carbon credits by partnering with companies to identify, develop and manage projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Camco then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits to international compliance buyers and into the voluntary market.The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) selected Camco as the Official Carbon Advisor for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, to be held August in Denver “As the Official Carbon Advisor, Camco will work with the DNCC to estimate the Convention’s carbon footprint”.

So who will win in this battle to monetize the carbon? While science was killed as an innocent bystander, the UN with its desire for funding via international taxation vies with exchange corporations who want a piece of the new $300 billion market. (See also: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm)

Read the full report

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

July 2, 2008
Editor:
One of the goals of the global elitists is
to ruin the economies of the industrialized nations. The other is mass depopulation.
All to take place under the guise of saving the world from global warming. Courtesy of the UN and Agenda 21

GLOBAL VIEW

By BRET STEPHENS

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass
hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has
since been discredited. Now it’s time for political scientists,
theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist
otherwise, none more noisily than NASA’s Jim Hansen, who first banged
the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered
with all the modesty of “99% confidence”).

[Global Warming as Mass Neurosis]
AP
The New True Believers

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now
begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the
continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that
six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000
scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight
cooling in the past five years, never mind that “80% to 90% of global
warming involves heating up ocean waters,” according to a report by
NPR’s Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of
Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of
February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere’s coldest in decades.
In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that
global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not
not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse
resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an
empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight
global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t
evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable
hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence
of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming
isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.

So let’s stop fussing about the interpretation of ice
core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the
troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong
is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I
see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience.
Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming
alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and
consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any
other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher
taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an
enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a
justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific
“consensus” warning that some looming environmental crisis could only
be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to
“patriarchal” science; curtains to the species.

Full Story