PERHAPS ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF “CLIMATE CHANGE”??? CAN WE ONLY HOPE???

Proving the point once again that this entire ‘climate change’ malarkey is simply nothing more than some cockamamie leftwing con, it has now come to light that at least three foreign countries may be changing their historical weather data in order to show warming trends.  This according to a scientist in the field.  Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute claims in a story that Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have each altered their data in an effort to prove global warming is real.

Dr. Burnett writes, "Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments."  And then he goes on to say, "In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly, I reported weather bureaus in Australia and Paraguay were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded."

Citing a report from Swiss Science journalist Markus Schär, Burnett writes that Switzerland altered its weather data and now it shows a "doubling of the temperature trend."  He goes on to write, "For example, in Sion and Zurich, [the Swiss Meteorological Service] adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend."  He adds, "Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data-tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a 'propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.'"

In March, it was reported that U.S. government scientists often change weather data, a practice that is neither new nor a secret. Scientists say the data is changed to correct for inaccuracies in testing. Critics say it is a way to show a warming trend, which it has done.  The National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC, pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s. NCDC creates a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend.

Global warming skeptics, commonly referred to as “deniers” or “flat-earthers” say it is a man-made scam, while defenders, commonly referred to as “environmentalist wackos”, of the phenomenon point to evidence in weather data, which is apparently being changed in countries across the world.  Bill Nye, who hosted a popular children's show in the 1990s, told Rutgers University graduates over the weekend that global warming is real.  "So, hey deniers — cut it out, and let's get to work," Nye said.

The ones who need to, using Mr. Nye’s words, cut it out, are those like Mr. Nye, himself, who insist upon perpetuating what is nothing more than one of the most diabolical scams of all time.  And what is the worst part of all is they know full well that what they are peddling is nothing more than a lie.  And while there is very little actual science that supports their apocalyptic claims, that does not prevent them from looking us all straight in the eye as they tell us we are destroying our planet. 

THE BELIEVERS IN ‘MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE’ ARE THE TRUE ‘FLAT-EARTHERS’…

Well it would seem that according to U.N. climate change chief Christiana Figueres, extreme weather events like the winter freeze being experienced here in North America and the devastating floods that are apparently occurring in England just might have, what she referred to as, a "silver lining". Meaning, I guess, that such events should be seen as being a reminder that urgently addressing climate change is not a politically partisan issue. But that’s exactly what it is. And it’s being pushed by the left.

It was while providing a recent interview that this ‘expert’ on climate change said, "There's no doubt that experiencing these weather events, which I call experiential evidence of climate change, does raise the issue to the highest political levels." While there’s no doubt that we have been experiencing these events, there does remain a great deal of doubt when it comes to why. I would argue that they are simply natural occurring events because, despite all of the nutty claims, there is very little actual proof that they are anything else.

But I guess when you’re a ‘climate change’ supporting loon under the employ of the United Nations, that possibility just never really enters your mind. Because she went on to say, "It’s unfortunate that we have to have these weather events, but there is a silver lining if you wish, because these weather events, what they remind us is that solving climate change, addressing climate change in a timely way, is not a partisan issue." Actually, what it is, is a completely insane issue that IS politically motivated!

She said, "It’s not like these weather events affect those who are on the left of the political scale or those who are on the right. It doesn’t matter where you are in politics, nationally or internationally, you get the same impact. The longer we wait to have policy that positively affects the trajectory of [greenhouse gas] emissions, the more of these events we’re going to have." And on what does she base this argument, on her bunions? The ones who are so eager to blame man, are those on the left!

Figueres, whose official title is the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, cited some of the extreme weather events of recent times. Despite what this idiot may think or say, this is a very politically charged issue, and has very little basis in any actual science. It has been shown, repeatedly, that the numbers have been, and are continuing to be, fudged. And yet this continues to be portrayed as the next great apocalypse or as a "weapon of mass destruction."    

Supporters of this theory use faulty computer models designed to support the complete nonsense that Ms. Figueres and her colleagues endlessly peddle. She goes on to say, "Who had ever heard of the [polar] vortex in New York, right, before that weird weather? Incredible heat that Australia has suffered, the floods in the U.K, and you name it, it goes on and on and on and on. Frankly, there’s no country that has been exempted from very strange weather over the past, let’s say, one or two years."

And again she makes the claim, "And these very strange, extreme weather events are going to continue both in their frequency and in their severity. It’s not that climate change is going to be here in the future; we are experiencing climate change." And she says, "We can no longer afford not to take very, very clear action." You know, it was loons just like Ms Figueres, here, that back in the 70s were warning us all to start preparing for the coming ice age. Whoops, missed that one!

So with Ms. Figueres apparently at the helm, the U.N. climate change agency is pushing for a long-elusive binding and universal agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" blamed for climate change. A U.N. climate conference is planned for Lima, Peru next December, when activists are hopeful an international agreement draft will be drawn up for approval at the next big gathering, in Paris, France in Nov.-Dec. 2015. We should simply no attend either.

Ms. Figueres, a Costa Rican appointed by U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in 2010 and reappointed in 2013, said she regarded her work not just as important, but as "sacred." And she went on to say, "It is something that I love doing because this is the most important challenge that humanity has ever faced." She added, "So many people say ‘that’s the most difficult job in the world.’ I say it’s the most sacred job in the world. We are holding the responsibility for future generations." What a bunch of malarkey!

MAN-MADE “GLOBAL WARMING”…THE SCAM…

I’ve never been a believer in this whole cockamamie theory that the planet is getting warmer and that it’s somehow my fault. It’s always seemed that those behind the advancing of this con job had more than one ulterior motive. And if I remember correctly, it was many of the same characters who, back in the 70s, were warning us all about the coming ice age. But when that didn’t exactly pan out for them they merely shifted gears, so to speak. So one scam morphed into another.

So you can only image how I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when old Al Gore got the news about how it was that the co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate committee that there is "no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years." I bet old Al had an old fashioned conniption fit and, most likely, went straight through the roof. Seeing that would have made my day!

So anyway, what I’m thinking that might have really pushed Al just a little closer to the edge is the fact it that Mr. Patrick Moore, who, I guess, happens to be a fella who back in 1971 helped form the famed environmentalist wacko nut-group, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee saying that "if there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." That certainly seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Mr. Moore continued in his testimony, saying, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states: ‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’" Adding, "'Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines ‘extremely likely’ as a ‘95-100 percent probability.’ Look, the gaggle behind all of this nonsense is clearly not interested in any actual science.

And Mr. Moore then went on to say something that I think most of us non-believers have always believed to be the case. That this entire premise of supposed man-made climate change has been concocted. He said, "But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ‘invented’ as a construct within the IPCC report to express ‘expert judgment,’ as determined by the IPCC contributors."

Apparently, Mr. Moore, who appears to be a very sincere individual, departed Greenpeace in 1986 after 15 years because he said the group "took a sharp turn to the political left and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective." He told the Senate committee that political bias has tainted climate-change "science." Gee, now there’s a no-shit item. I think we all already knew that about this rather strange group which is comprised primarily of those who are most comfortable on the extreme left.

And another little key indicator here which proves that this entire "global warming" scam is based on nothing more than junk science of the purest kind, was made all the more obvious when Mr. Moore pointed out, "The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to 'human influence.' Obviously, the "global warming" scam artists want to have it both ways.

Mr. Moore also went on to ask the question, "They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase ‘since the mid-20th century.’ Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by ‘human influence,’ when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?" Those pushing this theory seem to be rather selective regarding the ‘science’ that they try use to bolster their idiotic claims.

Mr’ Moore also went on to criticize the over-reliance on computer models in defining the pattern of any climate change. "These judgments are based almost entirely on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate," he said. Now look, I think we’ve known since the beginning of this computer age all that the data can be manipulated. Because as we all know, when it comes to computers, garbage in equals garbage out.

Mr. Moore said, "As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it's sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods." And yet we’re constantly being lead to believe that our computers are infallible.

Mr. Moore ended his testimony with a statement that one would be hard-pressed to challenge. He told the committee, "I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today." Now ain’t that the truth. How much time and, even more importantly, money have now been wasted on this scam? It’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re even still treating this as being something that we need to be genuinely concerned about.

No matter how much proof is provided that what’s claimed to be occurring here, really isn’t, we continue to have liars like Barry wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on ‘green energy’, and buffoons like John Kerry-Heinz running around telling us that ‘global warming’ is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction? And it’s all a scam that provides to Barry a rationale for the government to have more control over the cars we drive and the energy we’re allowed to use in our homes.

DEMOCRATS WORK TO PERPETUATE THEIR ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ HOAX…

Apparently, Barry and the Democrats would rather discuss ‘global warming/climate change’ than the far more important issues such as Obamacare and the economy. And the reason I say that is because while Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz prances around the world speaking doing his best to advance the cockamamie theory, right here at home we recently had Barry claiming that California’s worst drought in a century is also linked to ‘global warming’ caused by those pesky old greenhouse gas emissions that he’s trying to get rid of.

But we also seem to have a tiny minority of supposedly shoddy scientists, that John Kerry-Heinz recently made reference to while on one of his many wasted trips abroad, who aren’t so willing to let Barry get away with making his idiotic claim. And one those scientists is Richard Seager, who’s happens to be a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. And it’s Mr. Seager who told The New York Times, "I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability."

Mr. Seager bases his claim that ‘climate change’ has played little or no role in causing the drought, on recent computer projections that suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter not drier in the winter. The drought, which has lasted three years, has made 2013 the driest year in California since records first started being kept 119 years ago. But even The Times says there’s no concrete evidence to support the theories that a warming planet is what has caused California’s drought leading to a water shortage.

And Michael Anderson, the California state climatologist, has said, "We are going through a pattern we’ve seen before, but we’re doing it in a warmer environment." And last week, while on a tour of central California, Barry proudly announced $160 million in federal financial aid to the state, including $100 million in the farm bill he’d previously signed into law for programs that cover the loss of livestock. So like every other issue he encounters, Barry reacts like your typical Democrat by doing nothing more than to throw more money at it.

And then we have the White House ‘shoddy science’ adviser, John Holdren, who stated last week that, ultimately, climate change is the reason behind California’s water shortage, even though "no single episode of extreme weather" can be blamed on global warming. He said, "The global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change." It’s like if the say it enough, the rest of us will finally start to believe this drivel.

But Mr. Seager, on the other hand, said that southwestern states have suffered drought conditions in some form for 15 years, and warmer climates have resulted in winter precipitation tending to fall as rain rather than snow. With less snow melting during the spring, these states face a lack of water during the hot summer months. "It all adds up across the Southwest to an increasingly stressed water system," he said. "That’s what they might as well get ready for." Liberals have long bragged about being big supporters of science, but oddly enough, it’s only if science can be made to at least appear to be supportive of their nutty theories.

THE BOGUSNESS OF 'GLOBAL WARMING'...

Back in 2007 there was prediction made by some global warming zealot, that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013". And that very same prediction would later be cited by former vice president, and climate change profiteer, Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. This just goes to show you that one should always be a little leery whenever making predictions because, as in this case, the odds are usually against you being correct. Because as was the case here, this particular prediction was way off, by over 920,000 square miles. But I'm sure the fact that an ice free failed to come to pass, will have very little impact on those who remain quite dedicated to what has essentially become the religion of "climate change."

It was in his silly Dec. 10, 2007 "Earth has a fever" speech that Gore referred to this prediction made by U.S. climate change zealot, and a supposed scientist, Wieslaw Maslowski who prophesized that the Arctic’s summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by, of course, carbon emissions. It was on Sept. 21, 2007, that Gore said, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now." Whoops!

This nutjob Maslowski told members of the American Geophysical Union in 2007 that the Arctic’s summer ice could completely disappear within the decade. "If anything," he said, "our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is already too conservative." Gore also warned that rising temperatures were "a planetary emergency and a threat to the survival of our civilization." but a funny thing happened, instead of completely melting away, the polar icecap is at now at its highest level for this time of year since 2006. Satellite photos taken by NASA in August 2012 and August 2013 show a 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet despite "realistic" predictions by supposed climate scientists six years ago that the North Pole would be completely melted by now.

So instead of shrinking away to nothing, the NASA photographs clearly show that the Arctic ice sheet is much larger than it was at this same time last year, or more than half the size of Europe. The thick layer of summer ice, which currently stretches from Canada to Russia, is actually preventing ships from using the North-West Passage. A Dec.12, 2007 BBC article, a less than credible source on the subject, actually quoted 'Professor' Maslowski and his team of climate change enthusiasts at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. explaining how they used "a high-resolution regional [computer] model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data" to make their predictions. "This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean," he said.

Well I hate to be the one to burst the good 'professor's' global warming bubble here, as well as that of Al Gore, but it would seem to me that their data was maybe a little less realistic and a lot more wishful thinking. Look, more and more evidence that proves that this entire cockamamie notion of global warming is absolute horse shit becomes available every single day. It is nothing more than a pathetic scheme dreamt up by bogus scientists and guys like Gore who are out to make themselves rich at the expense of folks like you and me. All you have to do is open your eyes and ignore the propaganda coming from politicians and our state-controlled media. It matters little that climate change is a pretty low priority for most Americans, because it's such a high priority for those on the left.

A FEW 'FACTS' ABOUT 'GLOBAL WARMING'....

SKIP TO ABOUT THE 2 MINUTE MARK...

EFFORTS ARE STILL UNDERWAY TO, SOMEHOW, TIE HURRICANE SANDY TO "GLOBAL WARMING"...

And things really start to get a little nutty when Al Gore comes to the microphone at about the 11 minute mark.  This guy wants so bad for this cockamamie theory of 'global warming' to be true that he will literally say absolutely anything, whether it is based on the facts or not.

MORE 'GLOBAL WARMING' SMOKE AND MIRRORS...

If you believe in such fairytales as ‘global warming’ or the more innocuous sounding ‘climate change’, then maybe a new report out claiming that the world’s emissions of heat-trapping pollution rose again last year by 3 percent, might have you even more worried than you were before. Personally, I'm just not a big believer in this obvious hoax. I think it’s all a load of crap cooked up by crooks like Al Gore as way to make themselves a whole lot of money. But be that as it may, using this new report as their ammunition, some scientists are now saying it’s unlikely that global warming can be limited to just a couple of degrees, which has always been the international goal. But again, that’s only if you buy this entirely nutty theory in the first place.

So, according to this new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the majority of the increase came from China, named as being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet’s top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that actually reduced their carbon dioxide emissions. But none of it matters, because this whole cockamamie theory is based on nothing more than junk science which has repeatedly been exposed, more times than I care to count, as being completely fraudulent. But I guess liberals figure if they just keep talking about it long enough they’ll be able to convince the rest of us that it’s real and that we’ll then be much more willing to live like it’s 1799. I’m just not there yet.

Here’s the 2011 figures for those that the believers label as the biggest polluters:

1. China, up 10 percent to 10 billion tons.
2. United States, down 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons
3. India, up 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons.
4. Russia, up 3 percent to 1.8 billion tons.
5. Japan, up 0.4 percent to 1.3 billion tons.
6. Germany, down 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons.
7. Iran, up 2 percent to 0.7 billion tons.
8. South Korea, up 4 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
9. Canada, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
10. South Africa, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.

We're told here that last year, all the world’s nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of those dastardly fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and that’s according to the new international calculations on global emissions. Calculations made, I'm quite sure, by folks possessing highly dubious motivations. Anyway, we're told that’s about a billion tons more than the previous year. The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide released into the air every second. And yet, somehow, there is more ice in Antarctica today than there has been since records began being kept back in 1979. And, AND, the hole in the ozone layer is the second smallest that it has been in 20 years.

But none of that really matters to those zealots who possess the loudest voices when presenting all manner of doomsday scenarios resulting from emissions of this supposed key greenhouse gas having now been rising steadily over time. And they claim that since most carbon stays in the air for a century it's not just unlikely but "rather optimistic" to think that the world can limit future temperature increases to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That would be according to the study’s lead author, Glen Peters at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in, of all places, Oslo, Norway. Three years ago, nearly 200 nations set the 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit temperature goal in a nonbinding agreement.

However, negotiators now at a conference under way in Doha, Qatar, are trying to find new ways to reach that elusive target. Sounding like the true believer I’m sure he is, Peters said that the only way is to start reducing world emissions now and "throw everything we have at the problem." Andrew Weaver, yet another supposed ‘climate scientist’, from the University of Victoria in Canada, who was not part of the study, said: "We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem." You know, I just haven't gotten to the point where I think that man can actually impact the weather, one way or another. What I do believe is that this is a purely cyclical occurrence that we do not have the power to influence.

All we can do here is to go broke, excuse me, more broke, in an effort to prevent something that is well beyond our ability to do anything about. Back in 1997, most of the nutty world agreed to a rather idotic little treaty that was referred to as the Kyoto Protocol. And what it did was to require developed countries such as the United States to cut their own economic throat in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5 percent when compared with the baseline year of 1990. But countries that are still developing, you know like countries China and India, were not limited to how much carbon dioxide they could spew into the atmosphere. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the United States never ratified the treaty.

Now what’s being called the latest pollution numbers calculated by the Global Carbon Project, some joint operation of the Energy Department and the Norwegian Research Council, show that worldwide carbon dioxide levels are 54 percent higher today than the 1990 baseline. But how can we actually trust that these numbers are anywhere near accurate? Is it just because this group says they are? Let's just say for the sake of argument that these figures are correct and that carbon dioxide has gone up by that amount. So what? We already know that these 'global warming' zealots have repeatedly fudged the data in an effort to prove their point? So what makes them anymore correct than those who disagree with the entire theory?

UNITED NATIONS CONTINUES TO PUSH THE CLIMATE CHANGE FALLACY…

With Barry’s re-election now a lock, international pressure is once again beginning to ratchet up on him to abandon what small vestige of political self-preservation he’d managed and go full-bore Leftist. The latest instance comes from U.N. Climate Chief, and flaming lunatic, Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica, who is yet another environmentalist-wacko who has made the idiotic claim that Hurricane Sandy must now be considered as being that much awaited "wakeup call" for the United States regarding climate change. As well, this bonehead, Ms. Figueres, lamented our continuing unwillingness to begin penalizing carbon emissions with zeal.

The Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog explains it this way:

"Yes, I certainly do think that this is yet another wake-up call," Figueres said of Hurricane Sandy to Yale Environment 360 in an interview published by The Guardian."I did hear President Obama say quite categorically in his acceptance speech that he is not going to have a future that is threatened by increasing warming . . . I do think that this mirrors the growing awareness in the United States. So I do think that Sandy has contributed to this. Is it the tipping point? That remains to be seen."

Figueres also spoke of international frustration with the United States for failing to sign onto UN global warming initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol. "[I]f the United States does not strengthen its participation in the global climate regime under the newly re-elected president I think there will be increased frustration with the United States," she said.

Cap and Trade, Barry’s previous preferred method of dealing with climate change, has been stalled in Congress pretty much since the start of his first term, and it would seem that Barry likely lacks the political capital to pass it, even in the aftermath of his ‘mandate’ election. This instance of gloating by the U.N. is deeply unlikely to change that. In fact, Chief ‘NUT’, Figueres might have given Barry’s critics a little more ammunition if he pursues the policy in the face of this kind of pressure. The idea of the Barry bowing to criticism from foreign entities could be a potent political toxin, even for a lame duck.

What this really is, is nothing more than one more attempt by the ant-capitalists to further weaken and to ultimately destroy the American economy. Just how many times as this cockamamie theory need to be shown to be the complete hoax that it is? It’s something that refuses to die with leftists all across the globe becoming even more determined as they continue to push this idea that, essentially as no basis in actual scientific fact. Oh sure, they’ve managed to find a few supposed scientists that back the nonsense, but that’s no different than a lawyer being able to find some ‘quack doctor’ to claim that the person you bumped into in the parking lot has serious back injuries. When there’s enough money involved, people will say anything.

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE...

SOMEBODY REALLY SHOULD POINT OUT TO OBAMA THAT ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ STOPPED 16 YEARS AGO…

Despite all of the dire nonsense that we’ve recently heard coming from Barry about how it is that "carbon is eating our planet," some recent data has once again made quite clear that that's simply not the case. What our planet is, quite obviously, being consumed by is, DEBT. But that's the subject for another post. That fact that Barry continues to spew such idiotic propaganda proves that his rationale most likely has more do with politics than it does with anything that, even remotely, has to do with any ‘global warming’ that may be happening. Now being a man of science, you would think he would know that recent data indicates that the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago. The figures, which have triggered the recent debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, or 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for roughly 40 years.


Now it should come as no surprise here that this new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until very recently had not even been reported on. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010, a very warm year. At that time we were told by global warming calamitists that we now faced some pretty horrific consequences. Skewing the data by ending then makes it possible for those who insist that we are the purveyors of our own doom to show a slight warming trend since 1997, however, 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. Die hard climate scientists, or those who chose to deny the actual facts, guys like some guy named Professor Phil Jones, who happens to be the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, home of 'Climategate', last week chose to dismiss the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

But many others have chosen to disagree. One of those who chooses to disagree is Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Georgia Tech university. Professor Curry has said in a recent interview just this past Sunday, that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’. And apparently even Professor Jones, our die hard global warming advocate, admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’, factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he and his colleagues stubbornly remain convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two even though that’s not what the data is saying. But I think it fair to ask, on what exactly, does he and his colleagues base that assumption. The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. So might Professor Jones and his colleagues perhaps have some ulterior motive here?

If we go all the way back to 1880, when worldwide industrialization began to gather speed and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, we see that the world has warmed by less than half a degree Fahrenheit. Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next 'climate change' quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two surprising. As previously mentioned since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about half a degree Fahrenheit. And from the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is...zero. Which begs the question, how is it, exactly, that our planet can then being the process of being eaten by carbon, as Barry would have us believe?

The answer to that third all important question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, a big part, because of the policies that have been put into place by Barry and his EPA which, I think can safely be accused of having gone rogue. From day one of Barry's coming into office war was essentially declared on fossil fuels of every type. Which seems to be the only type of war that Barry feels comfortable in declaring. As we sit back and watch as Barry pours billions and billions of our taxpayer money into every 'green energy' boondoggle imaginable, he continues to ignore completely the vast wealth of energy that we are literally sitting right on top of. This cockamamie notion of 'global warming' is shared by politicians of all stripes and is 'drilled' into the heads of our children beginning in grade school with kid being scared into believing that without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences. Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialization over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry said in a recent interview. ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’ Professor Phil Jones, agreed with her on two important points. The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event, ‘it could go on for a while’. Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’


Yet Prof Jones maintains that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said. And that's despite the fact that in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent, he told a colleague in one of those Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the "no upward trend" has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions. ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’ Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years. Meanwhile, his many colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

So let’s be clear. Even if global warming is real, it 's cause is far from being determined absolutely. And if some of it, at least, may have been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels, the evidence would seem to suggest that it's happening much slower than these catastrophists like Barry, and his buddy Al Gore, have claimed. The bottom line here, which should go without saying, is that our planet is not being consumed as Barry would have us believe. It's just more campaign trash talk. It's all nothing more than part of the near endless stream of fiction that we here as being the basis for re-electing Barry. This 'theory' of continuing 'climate change' has long been an issue near and dear to the hearts of Democrats. Primarily because the voew as being a scam that they can use to garner for themselves massive amount of money which they can then turn around and use to buy votes. If you remember, it was back in the 1970's that we were being told we needed to modify our behavior due to the coming ice age. Today it's because we prevent our planet from being eaten by carbon. I ask you, does any of this make the least bit of sense?

MIGHT OBAMA BE LAYING THE GROUND WORK FOR SNEAKING THROUGH CAP AND TRADE?



In yet another example of slight of hand, Barry's Administration is now in the process of spending over $17 Million to do, of all things, explore how best to go about the establishing of a market for carbon credits. Ah, your tax dollars at work. More money well spent by Barry "Almighty." But then I guess that would depend on your point of view as well as your IQ. What this is, is but one more example of the rogue nature of this administration, with Barry's Department of Agriculture (USDA) announcing in a news release (see bottom) that it has awarded $17.4 Million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to establish a market for greenhouse gas (GHG) credits, something that is a key component of a cap and trade system, to help reduce carbon and other emissions that apparently contribute to what can only be described as a fictional global warming. So apparently, no matter how much evidence is presented that this whole notion of man made global warming/climate change is nothing but a sham, these people intend to continue to operate as if it is a proven fact. Agriculture Secretary, and Barry stooge, Tom Vilsack said the projects were the “foundational work” for establishing an American carbon market. “This is really sort of foundational work that’s being done,” Vilsack told reporters on a conference call on Wednesday. Foundational work? What the Hell does that mean. I just don't trust any of these clowns as far as I can throw them, especially Barry. They just are able to lie way too easily.

This $17.4 Million in wasteful spending is all part of something called the Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) program, which, I guess, is something that's supposed to foster innovation in environmental conservation technology and business. Right! It's most likely nothing more than a very creative way to siphon off taxpayer money and direct it toward Barry's political allies. But let's suppose that that's not what's going on. In this case, the administration has received "special funding" to provide CIG grants for projects that demonstrate methods for establishing a GHG-offset markets in agriculture. Greenhouse gas offsets, more commonly referred to as carbon credits, are a key component of a Cap and Trade system, the ‘trade’ part of the scheme in fact. Under cap and trade, businesses with GHG offsets can sell them to other businesses that need the offsets to stay under some hypothetical emissions cap, which is the government established legal limit on carbon-dioxide and other GHG emissions. (Under cap and trade, in general, companies that exceed their “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions can “trade” (buy) credits as compensation, the money for which is applied to more environmentally friendly industries; you pollute, you pay, and the money goes to green companies.) The cost in jobs lost as well as in energy costs that the American people will be "forced" to endure, should any of this nonsense ever become a reality, will be nothing short of astronomical. Yet, onward we go!


As the theory goes, GHG offsets can come from anything that reduces the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses that are emitted into the air, from a pledge to keep rural land undeveloped to planting trees to changing how farms handle animal waste or fertilizer. “We want to help farmers and ranchers make important and innovative contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Vilsack said. “These grants are designed to test and verify exciting new approaches to greenhouse gas reduction that other conservation-minded producers will want to put to work on their operations.” In other words, the CIG grants fund projects that attempt to measure the quantity of GHGs that are saved, by not farming rural land, for example, and how those savings affect the value of the offsets – how many GHG credits a particular action is worth. Have you ever heard of anything as insane as this whole cockamamie notion? It is pure drivel, being propagated via the highest levels of our government with to sole intent being that it's we humans who are responsible for something that has been proven to be a nonevent. It's pure, unadulterated lunacy, that has absolutely no basis in fact or science! Liberals assume that if they sound the alarm often enough and loud enough the rest of us will come to realize that yes, we are at fault of whatever climate change may be occurring. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into their insidious little trap that based on faux science.


In a cap and trade system, as it is currently being portrayed, farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers would theoretically stand to make money by selling credits to other, GHG-intense businesses such as manufacturers and power companies. Keep in mind here that this is all strictly "theoretical," with there being absolutely no basis in actual fact. Among the projects being funded with our tax money is a $1 Million program that stretches across eight states and is described as being done in an effort to show that beef and dairy farmers can be "incentivized" to change how they handle animal feeding and manure to produce less methane emissions. You gotta be kidding me. Supposedly there are scientists who believe cattails and tules may help to rebuild sinking islands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and combat global warming. Another $1.2 Million grant has been given to an Indian tribe in Washington State for the purpose of examining how to value and trade GHG offsets for planting trees, improved forest management, and not developing forested lands in tribal areas. Does this whole thing sound screwy to anyone other than me? Each of the nine projects funded under the special CIG grants – totaling $7.4 Million – aim to develop ways to integrate conservation and agriculture reforms into a GHG offset market, the type of market that would be critical to a functioning cap and trade system.


The USDA will also disburse an additional $10 Million through what it calls its Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grant program to further aid in these efforts. Vilsack said the reason the Agriculture Department was getting involved in the establishment of carbon markets, which currently exist only in states like California and the Northeast, was to better "integrate the federal government into regional cap and trade systems," so that the government has a better understanding of how GHG offset markets function. Ya, that's what we need to do, "better integrate the federal government" into this idiotic system. “[W]e’re hopeful that this would create opportunities for better collaboration for ourselves at USDA and the various states that are themselves establishing markets and that this would assist us in building the capacity within USDA to understand how these markets work and how we might be able to do more of this in the future,” said Vilsack. If the American people do not make their voice heard this completely bogus theory of man made global warming/climate change is going to shoved down our throats just as was healthcare "reform." Republicans in Congress, as well as our presidential candidates, Mitt Romney notwithstanding, are going to be counted on to lead on this issue and will be held accountable if they're unable, or unwilling, to bring this nonsense to a halt. They may very well prove to be our last line of defense in being able to stop this insanity.

News release follows in quotes:


"USDA Funds Projects to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 24 States


WASHINGTON, June 8, 2011— Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today approved about $7.4 million to fund nine large-scale greenhouse gas mitigation projects in 24 states through U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG).


"We want to help farmers and ranchers make important and innovative contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Vilsack said. "These grants are designed to test and verify exciting new approaches to greenhouse gas reduction that other conservation-minded producers will want to put to work on their operations."


In addition to the $7.4 million, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which administers CIG, will provide $10 million through its regular Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to eligible producers to implement conservation practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


NRCS received 43 CIG proposals from 28 states. Nine projects were approved and will be implemented in 24 states. Grant recipients are required to provide matching funds—both cash and in-kind services.


CIG, a component of EQIP, stimulates development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies. NRCS uses CIG to invest in innovative, on-the-ground conservation technologies and approaches with the goal of wide-scale adoption to address water quality and quantity, air quality, energy conservation, and environmental markets, among other natural resource issues. Grants are awarded to state and local governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations and individuals.


A summary of all selected proposals awarded in 2011 Conservation Innovation Grant is available below and at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/cig/2011ghgawards.html.


Adaptation of a Forest Carbon Protocol to Include Tribal Lands (Washington) – $1.226 million to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation to adapt and implement forest carbon sequestering practices and to develop protocols that overcome the legal and technical barriers faced by tribes in entering carbon credit trading markets.


Agricultural Soil Carbon: Developing a Large-scale Agricultural Soil Carbon Transaction in the Palouse Region (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) – $550,000 to Applied Ecological Services, Inc. to work with landowners to provide a roadmap for monetizing or determining a value for carbon credits arising from soil carbon enhancing conservation practices such as no-till and crop rotation on 1 million acres across the Palouse ecoregion.


Bringing Greenhouse Gas Benefits to Market: Nutrient Management for Nitrous Oxide Reductions (Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma) – $400,000 to the Delta Institute and its partners to create a system that allows producers to earn greenhouse gas credits for their nutrient management and conservation practices on at least 60,000 acres.


Dairy Farm Stewardship Toolkit (California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin) – $1.102 million to the Dairy Science Institute, Inc. to work with dairy farmers across 12 states to develop a decision support tool that helps those farmers enhance their conservation efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.


Demonstrating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in California and Mid-south Rice Production (Arkansas, California) – $1.089 million to the Environmental Defense Fund to develop and implement a first-of-its-kind initiative to demonstrate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in rice production.


Ducks Unlimited Avoided Grassland Conversion Carbon Project (North Dakota, South Dakota) – $161,000 to Ducks Unlimited, Inc. to develop tools for grassland producers to help them monetize or determine a value for the carbon storage benefit of retaining rangeland that may otherwise be converted to cropland on 10,000 acres in North Dakota and 15,000 acres in South Dakota.


Estimating Nitrous Oxide Reductions from Nutrient Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Maryland, Virginia) – $455,000 to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to develop a tool for estimating Nitrous Oxide reduction from nutrient management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and to reduce technological and financial barriers to certifying carbon offset credits generated by nutrient management.


Piloting Innovative Beef and Dairy Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies in U.S. Feedlots and Dairies (Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin) – $1.056 million to Unison Resource Co. to pilot test methodologies that qualify carbon offsets and that stimulate feed use efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, monetize carbon credits, and enhance economic viability in the beef and dairy industries.


Smart Nitrogen Application Program Demonstration Program Project (Iowa, Illinois) – $1.429 million with The Fertilizer Institute to develop a framework for delivering marketable carbon credits associated with Nitrous Oxide emission reduction when producers implement nutrient stewardship management practices on approximately 50,000 acres.


For more information about USDA's CIG, please visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/cig/index.html.


# USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202-720-6382 (TDD)."