Global Warming

[Stu]

Leadership (noun): influencing the behavior of others; providing vision, purpose, direction and motivation in a way that produces synergy; viewing issues with clarity and acting decisively; displaying courage and resolve while moving others towards a desired end-state.

History will someday affirm the positive leadership displayed by the U.S. while opposing the Lilliputians who are desperately trying to leverage a politically correct spin on Global Warming to elevate their sense of self-importance and achieve a New World Order.

Most recently, the U.S. was correct to again resist the socialist agenda pushed by the assortment of pompous Nobel laureates, environmental ministers, scientists and activists who met in Bali for yet another Global Warming hand-wringing session.

The media reported breathlessly that the coterie “hammered out the details” of an “aggressive approach” to “solving the climate crisis and avoiding an environmental catastrophe”. Right. Just like their previous Kabuki Dances, all they accomplished this time was to emit more carbon and again slip their objectives several years to the right.

In 1997, the “Kyoto Protocols” targeted 37 nations to reduce emissions by 5% below 1990 levels by the year 2012 with the long-term goal of reducing global emissions by 50% by the year 2050. The Protocols ostensibly went “into effect” in 2005 but “progress” remains elusive and its usefulness is increasingly being questioned in political and scientific forums.

Now the “Bali Roadmap” grows the list to 180+ nations and increases the short-term goal to 25-40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.

You know, a moving target is harder to hit….presuming that was ever the intent in the first place.

United Nations and European envoys “sparred” and “dueled into the final hours” with the U.S. to reach these “ambitious goals” but in the end specifics were eliminated in favor of non-binding language and “broad promises” for “future negotiations.” Apparently major polluters like China, India and Brazil didn’t like being referred to as “developing countries” and balked at being “encouraged” to cut emissions. That’s when the gang reverted to beating their favorite drum.

The U.S. was excoriated for “dragging its feet” and trying to “wreck future talks”. “The United States in particular is behaving like passengers in first class in a jumbo jet, thinking a catastrophe in economy class won't affect them," said Tony Juniper, a spokesman for a coalition of environmentalists at the conference. "If we go down, we go down together, and the United States needs to realize that very quickly." That’s a cute attempt at hyperbole but Tony should stick to his day-job training parrots instead of casting himself as some kind of subject matter expert.

Lost in the noise coming from Bali were reports of another epiphany in the scientific community; that the Sun probably causes the Aurora Borealis (aka The Northern Lights). Some day the Sun’s impact on cyclical weather patterns and climate changes on earth and other planets will be understood by scientists and broadcast by the media as well. But until those stars align, our Presidents need to lead, alone if required, in order to minimize the damage caused by the UN and its Global Warming goons.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

The net has been fairly quiet the past three months. Fortunately, what has been reported continues to give hope that Global Warming will eventually be unmasked for the scam it is.

Earth Hour. “Cities worldwide turn lights off to raise global warming awareness,” trumpeted headlines, “From Rome’s Coliseum to the Sydney Opera House, floodlit icons of civilization went dark Saturday for Earth Hour; a worldwide campaign to highlight the threat of climate change.” Yeah, right. The symbolism made some feel good but the rest was pretty schmaltzy, especially the candlelight dinners and beach-bonfire parties. I wonder if they were black-tie affairs? “What’s amazing is that [Earth Hour] transcended political boundaries and [happened] in places like China, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea” hyperventilated Andy Ridley, Executive Director of Earth Hour. Many people apparently had no choice. A good example was Sydney, Australia where the Lord Mayor himself led the effort to turn off the lights. The jury is still out however on whether the Media Watch charge is true; that pictures of Sydney were doctored – as in, deliberately overexposed - to show less light.

Global temps lower in 2008? UN meteorologists now forecast that global temperatures will be lower in 2008 than in previous years. (Let’s assume for sake of debate that the UN is even capable of speaking intelligently about climate change.) The World Meteorological Organization -- hyped as the UN’s authoritative voice on weather, climate, and water -- noted that La Nina is causing an “abnormal” cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific. Oh really? Check out the November 6th posting above, specifically the part on thermohaline circulation. Once again, the words “normal” and “cyclical” are relevant and understandable; even to the common man.

Evidence under ice? Archeologists remain puzzled by evidence of human activity located beneath areas once dominated by glaciers and bodies of water. One debate centers on Finland’s Wolf Cave. First excavated in 1996, the presence of humans can arguably be traced to the Stone Age through several glacial and interglacial periods. Again, why is this contentious given the scientifically predictable impact of climate patterns on the earth’s surface? Perhaps Algore, Ted Turner, Richard Branson, Toni Juniper, Melissa Etheridge, or the UN should be asked to settle the issue.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

God designed humans to respond by faith or to reason and pain. Global Warming certainly has its zealots, and reason has proven utterly useless with the larger gene pool when the subjects are oil, the environment, and climate change. Logic therefore dictates that pain is required to effect the required behavioral change. Perhaps fuel and food prices will expedite that tipping point, at least in America.

Why do we block efforts to expand nuclear power yet encourage the diversion of efficient food sources into inefficient biofuels?

Why do we acquiesce when a vocal minority defines “oil supply” as a finite resource that America imports rather than a plentiful resource that America possesses, including trillions of gallons that can be extracted from shale?

Why do we tolerate the circus that is oil executives routinely paraded to Capitol Hill when the same isn’t done to other executives when their costs soar and net profit margins remain within the acceptable “profit” band?

Why do we reelect those responsible for the warped policies that limit our ability to build new refineries, make sensible energy decisions, and drill in areas that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil? And now some of them want to sue OPEC.

Why do we ignore escalating pollution in China, the demand for oil in Asia and the Pacific Rim, and Chinese oil drilling off the Florida coast?

Why is there no collective outrage over speculators whose greed continues to artificially inflate the price of oil futures?

Why?

On the up side, beams of light occasionally break through even the most frustrating and gloomy of times. Two recent examples provide some encouragement.

Dr. Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, endorsed a switch from coal to nuclear power. (Going Nuclear, Washington Post, April 16th, 2008) That makes environmentalist’s shudder but shows there is hope, albeit eventually, for educating even the staunchest environmental zombie.

Scientists report that since 1984 some oil and natural gas fields, once though depleted, are “miraculously” renewing themselves. Studies from the Gulf of Mexico as recently as 2005 confirm this phenomenon. The silence emanating from the media on this discovery speaks volumes. But it also fails to help educate our fellow citizens who derive reality from sources like The View and various morning shows.

Logic dictates that the majority of “we” must be informed before our elected leaders stop pandering to lobbyists, global special interests, and the Fourth Estate. Only then will we see our country move towards reasoned, balanced, and long-range energy and environmental policies. Until then, the pain will continue.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

5 October 2008

The Brazilian government now admits that upcoming elections – not Global Warming – are responsible for a 228% jump in Amazon deforestation over this time last year. Environment Minister Carlos Minc recently noted that local officials, eager to secure votes, were simply not enforcing regulations that limit the areas soy farmers and cattle ranchers clear for crops and grazing. (See 11 Dec 2007 post above)

It seems Incra – Brazil’s land reform agency -- is responsible for most of the deforestation, destroying 544,000 acres since 2005. Farmers and ranchers are a close second.

“When you have elections, the appetite of authorities to enforce laws is reduced”, lamented Paulo Adario, Greenpeace’s Amazon coordinator.

Talk about a blinding flash of the obvious.

The inverse correlation between political power and regulatory oversight is standard data whether the subject is the environment, health care, or the economy. That trend will continue until people hold politicians responsible, even in Brazil.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[E.W.]

As stated earlier in this thread it sure does seem the topic of global warming is an issue owned by the liberal illuminati. That is changing, which is a relatively recent but the more i talk to conservatives the more i realize how skeptical they are of the whole issue. Where as the left continues to embrace the issues.

This i don't understand especially from the conservative Christian crowd. It seems like this gift of our planted, given to us by God should be preserved instead of exploited. This shouldn't be a illuminati agenda. Even if the issue of global warming is exaggerated by the left and the issue is as serious as some would lead us to believe the right should still care. Maybe they are starting to.

[blondegenes]

Global Warming is a manmade creation designed so Carbon Taxation could be levied against
citizens and corporations,,,effectively creating yet another pool of money for the Al "hot air" Gore leftist environmentalists.
A vast left wing conspiracy,,,only one of many.

[TimHolm]

Quite a long time since anyone posted on this thread. Stu McLennan's comments are pretty
accurate IMHO about liberals & Democrats using the topic for their own agenda. Quite a few
times they have done a sorry job with their previous adoptions, like welfare, entitlements,
cold war (Vietnam), etc. In fact everything they touch eventually turns to sludge, almost.
Even NASA (yes, Democrat born) eventually translated into pork and waste, albeit with some
return and nice pictures from afar. They do seem to be jockeying for position on this one,
once again for their terribly selfish partisan reasons.

That being said, weather is exceedingly complex. GCM (global climate models) are simply
impossible to be sure of anything for long, much less on a macro level with only minor
changes. C02 parts per million have about doubled, but still the percentage is really small
and water is a real wild card in that H20 is a greenhouse agent, shield, and radiant, going
through several very changed radiating properties in ordinary temperature snow alone.

About the Mr. McLennan's Greenland bombers snowed over, with all due respect, you are
mistaken about that one. Snow development is based upon several factors, including
humidity (Rh). It happens that the part of Greenland the planes were stranded on is on
the South East tip of the island, which is close enough to the Gulf stream that huge
amounts of snow fall yearly. A few miles inland and the water amount equals about 10
to 20 inches of rain a year (in form of snow, of course). The top Northeastern part is
so dry as no ice fields or glaciers form, a net evaporation despite the low rate, since
very little falls. (Same thing goes with the dry valleys of Antarctica, with some icefields
naturally subliminating to expose meteors in the ice, accumulated over millions of years).
Musk oxen and other animals roam on the top of Greenland over huge icefree areas.
Most of Greenland's ice budget comes from the interior, huge acre plots that even at
20' of precipitation overweighs the edges, I think. Even if the increase in the top is
significant, it would take only a few thousand years to migrate down to the western
coasts. Since all of this is the area of ice free locals, and the ice overburden, it could
work that one side gains and the other side melts, still raising the ocean levels and
increasing the overall global albedo. (which all of this is really about, since we figured
out close to a century ago that a completely snow covered earth will reflect enough
sun heat away to be stable and completely freeze the planet until some asteroid or
huge volcano upsets the process, all about tripping points.)

So Greenland ice formation is really poorly thought of just from the tips close enough
to the North Atlantic warm current, as the whole is much less. Also, it is possible
to melt even if it did receive such a huge amount of snow yearly throughout. The reason is
that about half of Greenland is below water, especially in the interior. The ice melts mostly
on the edges, or at least used to until recently, as the interior parts below sea level also
have a mile of ice pushing down on them. But glaciers are odd stuff, and when warm enough
sea water does reach inland, like after melting and negotiating around a gravel and glacier
til bar, rapid collapse can and often does happen. A little warmer water, being far more
dense than air, changes everything. So warmer currents nearby make a big difference,
and can eat away on the underside for a great many miles inland, an exposed surface
magnitudes greater than that on the coast, if the water is only 1 degree or more than
above the level of freezing for fresh water ice,or 32F.

This means possibly far more rapid advancement of glaciers, and since these are not
floating, a raised ocean level. Not real quick, I guess, as there is a huge overburden and
the below sea level part is really not that deep. Antarctica West ice sheet is far deeper
and uneven, so is more of a catastrophe potentially. Both are probably poor candidates
for immediate collapse, just steady chipping away, maybe raising the ocean a few feet
with all the trouble that means (like Venice has had over the last odd centuries). And it is
relatively permanent, as ice buildup simply takes longer than potential melting, mainly
due to ice development comes from precipitation (snow) but melting on a large scale of
sheets tends to come from underneath with contact to seawater. Mountain temperate
glaciers are really irrelevant to what I am discussing.

There are methods to geoengineer solutions. In my personal experience, liberals and
professors do not want them in most high level centers. It is almost a religion to them,
though many readers at this site probably make these smart people into caricatures.
Please remember that being overly refined does not mean worthless. One simply
can not normally expect so much well rounded results from ivory towers. I speak
from experience. So they as a whole do not want geoengineering, only vast,
expensive global self composting toilets or the moral equivalent of offsets/cap&trade.

I can not be sure of my opinion is correct in that the situation risks going beyond the
'tripping point' is quite possible, sort of like one fairly pragmantic greeny says in a
Dirty Harry way "do we feel lucky". The world has changed in so many ways in the past.
It is a complicated mechanism only beginning to make sense. If so, Rush, Woolley, and
others would be kind of on the wrong side of this one (unlike on so many other areas
where I feel they are very correct in very dangerous areas). But being more positive
than a green shrine temple type, geoengineering seems the best way to look into. Some, like
iron dispensing in the ocean are unproven but very low cost. It could be a southern
ocean strategy, where very few crop or population centers are anywhere close, would
solve everything with little down side, should it become clear that we are on the slope.
A bit like the boyscouts, we should be prepared.

Again, it is very complex, especially to the novices that most people are. And politically
I have experienced the academia to be both astute and shaped by their biases, on average,
if that assessment makes any sense. We are talking face to face as well as other
mediums here. One more point, global warming seems to be cresting, but for how
long? The last 5 years have not been peak. The key exception seems to be in pressure
points, sort of canaries in the mine so to speak, like where currents have been veering
northward in Alaska or Greenland (which can, due to topography, increase snowfall and
glacier buildup, minding that the north part of Alaska remained icefree during the summer
throughout the iceages, as did the great majority of Siberia). Sea ice, which is thin, in
the North Pole has been collapsing, closing in towards the 50% mark, a very big move
we guess (almost no observation before 1938 ice island occupancy). Antarctic has
been moving the other way during southern winter (about August) to record levels
of maybe some 40 years of monitoring, but difficult to dislodge and much deeper
multi-year ice has been disappearing to about 1/2 of it's historical levels. We do not
absolutely know that, say, in the 13th century the same took place, as sea ice is
very rarely more than 20 years old, but I would say that this is different and
could very easily be a significant move.

Sort of a place your bets, gentlemen approach. No one knows. Politically, on both
sides too much posturing is taking place. I would say that for the conservative
right, we should take a postion that "maybe, but let's have geoengineer solutions
bandied about and extend the patent far beyond the 20year mark for convenience
of any that would be used". You see, everyone sensible loves a solution, but also love
to stall the payment, with the usual results of drying up true visionaries and developers.
The 20 yr extension is a business solution, one the left will shun as if it were a diseased
leper just walking in the room with obvious ten foot pole marks all over his poor body .
Sounds like a conservative's opportunity to me, although realistically even with
good result the libs will enevitably not own up and do heavy damage control.


And the true greenies? They will try to muck up the process. I grew up with these people
and still do not understand the inner drive well enough to clearly explain beyond hunches. It
seems something primordial, like fascism in the 1930's. But if they are a bit correct in
weather trends by hook, crook, or luck, it would pay to do a little ground work in alternatives
to such wacked out ilk solutions as they tend to propose.

[Stu]

27 Nov 2009

Probably not but this week's apoplectic response from the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cabal is certainly entertaining given the pablum they've continued to spew over the past year.

In case you missed it, opinions are ricocheting around the Internet about the archived emails that were recently either hacked or leaked from computer servers at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) located at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Despite the spin, the crux of the issue is not how the information came to light, but what it reveals.

Murphy’s Law has a corollary that applies to statistics - if you torture numbers long enough, then they’ll confess to anything. That’s what notes imbedded in software code developed by CRU indicate was done to secure data that supports the GW hypothesis.

Real Climate and other AGW disciples are in full-damage control mode as they hyperventilate about this “crime”, castigate “deniers” as conspiracy kooks and unscientific hacks, deny that the release of this information damages their scientific “proof”, and parse verbiage contained in the emails.

Is it just me or is there a way to misinterpret the words “trick”, “hide”, “redefine” and “keep-out”?

As expected, the New York Times joined the fray, pompously noting that “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

Is the phrase “double standard” hyphenated?

Perhaps the Gray Lady should switch to pictures. It would also be really helpful if it adhered to the same high standard for information dealing with national security and elected Republicans.

Granted, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply in Britain but the haughty reaction from GW proponents’ tracks perfectly with the liberal penchant for defaulting to feelings over facts and focusing on the seriousness of an accusation rather than the truth.

GW “deniers” on the other hand cite these emails as but further proof of the lies, collusion, fraud, stonewalling, selective interpretation and suppression of data within segments of the scientific community; political bribery and coercion; the fallacy of peer-reviews to achieve consensus as a method of proving scientific theories; and liberal political agendas intent on increasing government control, punishing industry, and destroying capitalism. Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

If they want to be taken seriously, climate scientists should internalize a few truths from this dust-up; consensus has a role in politics but not in the scientific process; data must be repeated and confirmed legitimately; transparency is good; and there is no such thing as a digital secret.

After the 2016 Olympic fiasco, you’d think the President would avoid a repeat by attending next month’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and committing the United States to an emissions cut of 17% within the next decade. (Sigh) That would be a no. Just add it to the list of things to undo in 2010 and 2012.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

28 Nov 09

I regularly critique the Killeen Daily Herald in another thread but am compelled to also give credit when the editor gets its right. (Copenhagen won’t stall global warming, Editorial, 28 November 2009).

In July 1997, the US Senate recognized the folly of climate policies resulting in “economic pain with no environmental gain” when it passed SR 98 by a vote of 95-0. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution highlighted the following and stated that the US should not enter climate agreements that harmed the US economy or omitted developing nations.

o The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted May 1992, implemented 1994, and (not surprising) remained unenforced.
o The focus should be developing countries since they were the main polluters; not developed countries.
o In April 1995, the UN sponsored Berlin Mandate called for the adoption -- as soon as December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan -- of legal mandates in the post-2000 period that strengthened commitments by developed countries and implemented standards for developing countries. It also exempted developed countries from any new commitments drafted at Kyoto.
o Noted that the exemption of developing countries from emissions standards (and penalties) was “inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed”.

Vice President Gore then ignored the Senate and committed the US to the goals drafted at Kyoto.

The US Energy Information Administration used the National Energy Modeling System to project annual US GDP losses that would result from implementing the “Kyoto Protocols”. Estimates ranged from $32-$62 billion in 2010 and $46-$120 billion by 2020.

USEIA also reinforced that the main global polluters were not developed countries like the US but the 129 so called “developing countries” identified in the Berlin Mandate including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea. These countries began exceeding US emissions in 2005 and remain unwilling to accept emissions restrictions.

So much for Kyoto.

There remains no conclusive scientific evidence that confirms rising global temperatures. In fact, as even the KDH notes, temps remain “remarkably flat”. Funny how cyclical climate and weather patterns will do that regardless of human activity.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

4 December 2009

What should it tell us when Fox News, the BBC and Comedy Central are the main sources for revealing the growing Climate Gate scandal and Copenhagen as the latest UN-led shake down?

And what about Democrats who want to prosecute the persons responsible for releasing the CRU emails instead of dealing with the mendacious and enormously destructive spin they expose?

ABC, NBC, CBS, the Times, et al have instead focused lately on “real news” like Tiger Woods’ “indiscretions”, party crashers at the White House, and Chelsea Clinton’s engagement. More accurately, they ignore what they don’t like, chaff with distractions, count on the public’s gullibility and short attention span, and remain smugly confident it’ll go away.

As Jon Stewart noted ironically, “Poor Al Gore. Global Warming completely debunked via the very Internet [he] invented. Oh the irony!”

And poor Peter Jones, as AGW is exposed as a scam by the very scientific process ostensibly used to prove it exists. The climate cabal is clearly miffed that they’ve been challenged for dumping data that runs contrary to the outcome they demand. As some Bloggers are whining, “Why won’t deniers just trust us?!”

And then there is Copenhagen; yet another attempt by “developing countries” to extort billions of dollars from the US and other “developed countries” in order to raise their standard of living, all under the crumbling guise of “protecting the environment”. The timing of the CRU implosion should help ensure that dog doesn’t hunt, unless the President pulls a Gore.

Seriously, what causes otherwise normal people around the globe to jettison logic, abandon any sense of a moral compass, and behave this way? Two things come to mind - sex and politics. The answer is becoming increasingly clear when it comes to the oxymoron called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

13 December 2009

Communism failed to defeat capitalism via the use of military force therefore the United Nations and AGW zealots have adopted a political ruse to try and steal the wealth required to achieve their socialist goals. Fortunately, the damage has been largely contained to the carbon footprint caused by globe hopping, hand wringing bureaucrats spouting dire predictions and announcing the “broad goals” and “consensus” required to “save” mankind and the planet.

And separate the US from its wallet.

In 1972, Sweden hosted the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The Stockholm Conference moved the UN to the forefront of the environmental movement and produced an impressive list of accomplishments; a declaration containing 26 “principles”, an action plan with 109 “recommendations” and the [typical] UN resolution that it would remain “seized of the matter”. Of note, the impact of CFCs was the main topic, not Global Warming.

The cabal acted confidently from 1972 to 1987 as the earth experienced a warming cycle, but then the earth cooled from 1987 to 1994.

In 1987, the Montreal Protocols called for “urgent action” to protect the earth’s ozone layer no later than 1989. The protocols were revised and “strengthened” in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997 and 1999.

In 1992, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro established a UN bureaucracy to manage the environmental socialist movement. It too called for “urgent action”, this time no later than 31 December 1998, to rethink economic development, replace fossil fuels, reduce emissions and save water.

And then the earth warmed from 1994 to 2002.

In 1995, the Berlin Mandate called for “urgent action” on reducing greenhouse gases not later than 31 December 1997.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocols again called for “urgent action” on reducing greenhouse gases during the period 2008 to 2012.

And then the earth began to cool again in 2002.

In 2008, the Bali Roadmap called for “urgent action” and agreements on emissions, cooperation, and financial aid at the 2009 summit in Denmark.

At this month’s Copenhagen Summit, the UN and AGW zealots are once again calling for “urgent action” during the period 2012 to 2020 and even out to 2050. “Wealthy” nations – less China of course which is still “developing” yet holds over $800 billion in US interests – are expected to subsidize “poor” nations in order to “…avoid irreversible climate change that scientists say could bring many species to extinction.” The UN promises that details will follow.

“Its time to begin to focus on the big picture”, said Yvo de Boer, the top UN climate official”. Begin!? This statement is especially ludicrous coming from a politician about a scam the UN has been perpetrating for over 20 years.

In Article 9, Section 2 of the Montreal Protocols, the UN tasked a Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to “….respond to scientific, technological and methodological questions that the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies may put to the body.”

It is unlikely that Climate Gate received an invitation to Copenhagen but perhaps “deniers” and Republican members of the congressional delegation will have an opportunity to crash the party and help enlighten the international community.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

27 Dec 09

The United Nations touted this 15th gathering of the “Conference of Parties” as the “most important meeting in the history of the world”. Hardly, but the need for hyperbole is understandable given how rapidly the ice is melting; pun intended.

And like all previous meetings, COP 15 was dominated by bluster, form, rhetoric, and double standards. The following are some recent pickings from the climatical grapevine.

Someone must have waived carbon footprint restrictions for Copenhagen. Organizers had frantically scoured Europe to assemble 1200+ limousines – amazingly finding only five that were electric or hybrid - to ferry conference attendees, 5000 reporters, and the 98 world leaders who arrived on 140+ private jets.

The Danish president of the conference resigned the night before world leaders arrived. Connie Hedegaard said the move was procedural but “developing” nations in Africa had long criticized her “favoritism” of rich nations. Translated – she was unable to squeeze them for $$.

President Obama is now zero for two in Hopenchangen. He blew in expecting the sea to part but instead joined the usual kabuki dance. In a stunning display of leadership, he then threatened to "walk away rather than accept a hollow victory". This brinksmanship failed, so he reconsidered and spun a “deal” that is non-binding, sets no standards, and - in the words of a conference spokesman - is “insufficient to combat climate change”. Hey, at least he didn’t pull a Gore.

The UN spin was that COP15 produced a "framework” that is an "important and substantial first step" and a "foundation from which to make further progress". Kinda like the first steps the UN took in 1972 and again in 1995 at COP1 in Berlin. Fortunately, the goal of a “legally binding, landmark accord” (aka a second step) still eludes the cabal.

Algore was hoisted again by the inconvenient truth that arctic icecaps will not disappear within seven years. He seems to have a short memory, even when it comes to his own pronouncements.

o April 24, 2009 during a Senate hearing - “…. researchers at the Naval Postgraduate School have told us that the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution. “

o December 14, 2009 in Copenhagen - "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

Al's handlers then explained that he was referring to the thickness of the ice, not the actual land area covered by the icecap. Right. Thickness. Hmmm.

US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said American farmers were volunteering to use anaerobic digesters to reduce greenhouse gases. These digesters capture methane gas from manure and turn it into electricity. That’s fine but Tom went further – with a straight face— and said the federal government would also “motivate” some farmers to sell excess credits on the carbon market. SNL should do a skit on what that idea brings to mind.

The US agreed to cooperate with other "developed" countries to generate $100B annually for a "climate protection fund". “Deal breaker” was the term used when "developing" countries then held out for $1T and China and India refused to accept emissions standards and “invasive” monitoring.

The US pledged $1B to help "developing" countries that propose "ambitious" plans to protect the rain forests. As above, that would require a cessation of the democratic process (read, elections) in South America.

Unlike their US counterparts, UK journalists provided sterling analysis of COP15 and described conference activities using words like disputed, stalled, paralyzed, struggled, resisted, imposed, regretted, unhappy, complained, distrust, and chaotic. The Sun also covered the “Gropenhagen” angle. Y’all can research that on your own.

The UN however was able to generate a tangible result at Copenhagen, one the US media has ignored. Simple math eluded UN organizers when they invited 30,000+ delegates to a conference center with a capacity of only 15,000. A rift then developed when, to make room for world leaders and their retinues, the UN disinvited thousands of environmentalists from attending the second week. Tempers flared, likely fueled by a tense first week that included distractions caused by Climate Gate, mind-numbing security checks, winter weather and a lack of consensus, which of course is a really big deal in the AGW ‘s parallel universe.

The UN could have claimed this awkward moment was intentional, but the conference wasn’t a beer commercial. Plus, both sides need each other to keep the dream alive until they gather again next year in Mexico for COP 16.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

14 January 2010

A CBS News investigative report has revealed that Nancy Pelosi invited 19 members of Congress to accompany her to Copenhagen to lobby for the AGW cause during COP15. The list included Steny Hoyer, Charles Rangel and 17 other faux-climate scientists; 12 Democrats and 5 Republicans. This delegation of subject matter experts eventually swelled to 101 people including staffers, press and spouses.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) also attended but paid his own way in order to offer an opposing view….and to confirm the fraud, waste and abuse.

When asked for an interview, Pelosi declined. When asked to confirm trip expenses, her office said she would “comply with disclosure requirements”. Ah yes, more of that hope n’ change transparency.

Appropriately piqued, CBS News continued digging and uncovered some facts.

Pelosi n’ Peeps took three military jets -- two Boeing 737s and a Gulfstream 5. Each cost $9,900 per hour for a total of $168,000 just for flight time. Others in the Pelosi Posse took commercial flights costing up to $2,000 per ticket.

The Carbon Footprint estimate was substantial; enough to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

The congressional delegation also racked up 321 hotel nights, mostly at the five-star Marriott. CBS is still trying to pry meal expense data from the congressional clams.

One Dem, preferring to remain anonymous, snippily defended the trip thusly; “This [junket] shows the world the US is serious about climate change.”

Amazing. Only in the rarified air of Washington DC could an elected official believe and spout such hubristic nonsense and then expect us to shut up, sit down and color.

Did you hear about the binding international agreements that Pelosi et al helped hammer out during several marathon and closed-door sessions? Me neither. Word on the street is that Harry Reid was unavailable.

November 2010 can’t get here soon enough.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

4 February 2010

The facts exposing AGW as a hoax and fraud are building to tsunamic proportion as the evidence mounts. Manipulation, suppression, destruction and selective use of data; repeated, unscientific and false reporting; doctored photos; propaganda movies and music; academic indoctrination; and lots of fear mongering, especially with children and the young. And as AGW unravels, five groups of people are clearly identifiable.

1. "Deniers" – never believed the lies.

2. "Enlightened" – originally believed but then embraced the facts and joined the Deniers.

3. "Believers" – generally uninformed and therefore clueless. Ignore facts and respond to feelings. Drank the Kool-Aid and despite evidence to the contrary stubbornly refuse to admit error.

4. "Disciples" – generally informed yet rigid advocates of the AGW movement's economic and statist goals. Oppose dissent and embrace the process that advances AGW as an imminent and dangerous fact.

5. "Manipulators" – those in high-profile positions who are masters of spin and deception. An evolved, cunning and often charismatic derivative of #4.

Like Evolution, Believers, Disciples, and Manipulators have utterly rejected the scientific method as the very path they claim justifies their hypothesis.

The purpose of science is not to answer all questions; it is to produce useful models of perceived reality by forming hypotheses and assumptions based on observations. A refresher is in order. (See the post on 2 Feb 2007)

Step 1 - Observe nature and define the question.

Step 2 - Gather information and resources.

Step 3 - Form a hypothesis.

Step 4 - Test, experiment and collect data until empirical and measureable results are reproduced.

Step 5 - Analyze and interpret data and draw conclusions.

Step 6 - When Steps 1 thru 5 are accomplished successfully, publish results and advance a theory based on proof.

Step 7 - Encourage retesting, often by other scientists.

Another example of the UN's malfeasance vis-à-vis use of the scientific method is the work of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC claimed in its fourth assessment in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than in other parts of the world and could disappear by 2035.

Fact - this assessment was based on a single source; a 1999 report by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Syed has admitted the report was "speculative" and focused on the glaciers in the central and eastern range. Regardless, it fit the template therefore the IPCC used it, brazenly expanding the affected area to include the entire Himalayas.

The Indian government objected but Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC President, labeled that challenge "voodoo science".

Fact - Pachauri knew before COP 15 that the assessment was flat wrong but it still took 2+ months and "media pressure" before he admitted the truth. And despite additional pressure to resign, Pachauri plans to remain the IPCC President and complete the fifth assessment in 2013.

In his State of Obama speech, the President continued to push the AGW noodle and claim the science is “undeniable”. (Sigh) Regardless, the time is coming when AGW will finally be exposed for the sham it is. Like a good curveball, we just need to wait for it.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

3 August 2010

Liberals continue to push the envelope and invent ways to tax us into submission. The latest schemes are emissions trading (aka cap-and-trade) and health care.

Obama Care is a tax, as Senator Reid recently admitted, but emissions trading is a hoax. Just like global warming. This subterfuge attempts to place quotas on carbon emissions and then “allows” businesses to trade unused allocations. It is stunning, but not surprising given the state of our union, that so many believe this shtick provides required economic “incentives” even though its based on an unscientifically supported hypothesis.

Twisting the Constitution and inventing ways to increase taxes however has long been a staple in the democrat high-fat diet. In this generation, Obamanomics disciples now cite the “commerce clause” contained in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution as justification for taxing anything that crosses state boundaries. There is just one problem; the two aren’t connected. Read Federalist 41 and 42.

Some people read the Bible the same way. They cherry pick and kluge verses to twist a point but then lose in the arena of faith by ignoring the context. That technique also doesn’t work in the arena of ideas.

We should be aware by now of what the Obama administration really means when it links “comprehensive” and “reform” to any policy. Illegal aliens and pollution are examples of the real intentions; amnesty and taxes.

I would agree however that we need a national sales tax, just not one disguised as an energy policy. To achieve that goal, we should look for a nominee in 2012 who espouses repealing the XVI Amendment, eliminating the income tax, re-tooling the IRS, and reverting to the method intended by our founders - taxation based on (original) consumption and land valuations.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights