Kyoto, Montreal, Whatever: Bullcrap

By government order, based on the Montreal Protocol (and as it turns out, nothing in particular), the cost of asthma inhalers is going up, to save the ozone layer. Many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much, or when the need is indicated. Actually, a great many won’t. Some asthmatics won’t have inhalers. Unfortunately, this will mean death for some asthmatics. But it saves the ozone layer.

Asthma inhalers go green but also cost more green
Oakland Tribune February 9, 2008 Barbara Anderson

Asthma inhalers are going green.

And users are seeing red over paying more for the new, environmentally friendly devices.

But like it or not, asthmatics who carry inhalers containing albuterol, a quick-acting drug that opens airways, will be switched to new inhalers soon — if they havent already — that are free of chlorofluorocarbons, an ozone-depleting propellant.

The old devices — called CFC inhalers — will be banned for use in the United States on Dec. 31.

Pharmacists say its increasingly difficult to order CFC inhalers. Manufacturers began phasing them out a year or two ago for inhalers that contain hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, a more ozone-friendly propellant.

The new inhalers are as effective as the old ones, pharmacists and doctors say. But they’re more expensive and operating them requires some getting used to.

Overall, prices of the new inhalers are higher because there are no generic versions, said Nancy Asai, a pharmacist in Fresno. And that means higher insurance co-payments for the brand-name drugs. The new inhalers typically cost from $45 to $65, Asai said.

One brand of inhaler, ProAir HFA, is available for about $30 at some discount pharmacies. But the old generic albuterol inhalers cost less than that.

The hope is prices for the new inhalers will drop, Asai said.

David Harvey, 40, a Fresno radio salesman, paid about $25 for his albuterol inhaler a year ago. Today, he pays about $45 for the drug.

The government ban on CFC inhalers is in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international pact that called for the elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals.

The new inhalers are good for the environment, said Dr. Richard DeMera, a Fresno allergist. We needed to do this, he said. But patients are having to pay a higher co-pay for their inhalers.

Yes, many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much. It should save the ozone. We all must make sacrifices.

But wait; real scientific results say that there is no strong reason to have banned CFCs in the first place:

Ozone hole theory faces lab problems

Luboš Motl the reference frame September 29, 2007

. . . Even though this should have been a good enough reason to make lab experiments with all these compounds, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory apparently did these experiments only recently. Their experiments were probably not trivial and required some low-temperature engineering. What is their result for the rate of photolysis of Cl₂O₂?

It is almost ten times smaller than needed for the existing ozone hole theories.

That’s a huge problem. But only Markus Rex of Potsdam was brave enough to look at the ozone depletion theory with these new data. A lot of things have obviously changed. A dramatic conclusion is that

At least 60% of observed ozone depletion is due to an unknown mechanism.

At least all quantitative features of the models – that have been considered a part of the “scientific consensus” – suddenly become uncertain again. One modest implication is that we certainly no longer know which molecules are actually important for ozone depletion and whether most of this process is due to completely different reasons, perhaps unrelated to chlorine and bromine. . . .

Shades of global warming! Computer models – phoney computer models – have supplanted empirical science. Bogus theory comes from computer. Is there Latin for it? Don’t get me wrong. I am against unnecessary pollution as much as anybody. But $billions and $billions have been spent replacing CFC with vastly more expensive refrigerants or propellants, for no good reason. Are we really going to take random action to ban this chemical and that byproduct, regardless of human need; regardless of impact, regardless of the cost, and imagine that the requirement has a scientific purpose; that the cost is scientifically justified?

What do we really have against asthmatics? What do we really have against energy?

Gore Demands Civil Insurrection

“It is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” said Gore today.

Al Gore now encourages law-breaking by our children, in America. Why?

That a winter more bitterly cold than last is forecast for much of the United States, does not matter to Al Gore. Winter blackouts should be a TREAT, right, Al?

Speaking of blackouts, I don’t remember any last summer. Which gives us some real perspective, be it from anecdotal information, which we now must rely on since scientific climate information has been discontinued in the United States by NASA and Al Gore.

Check this out: Disagreement with Gore’s AGW fairy tale now constitutes STOCK FRAUD, according to the legal expert Gore.

Read Gore Urges Civil Disobedience to Stop Coal Plants, via Newsmax

NEW YORK — Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis.”

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

“I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact,” he said. “I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that.”

Read the rest here.

NASA: We’re No Climate Experts, But AGW Is REAL

“None of us here are experts on climate” quotes Anthony Watts, from NASA’s press conference on the state of the Sun, today.

In August, a few days ago, NASA’s story was different.

Was the ice age and lack of sunspots a coincidence? Or an insight to a causal relationship between sunspots and solar heating of Earth? Dr. Hathaway does not think there is a significant change in the sun’s energy output when sunspots are low. That percentage, he argues, would have very little impact on our planet today, which is already warming too rapidly from the greenhouse gases blanket that human industry has created over the past century.

David Hathaway, Ph.D., Solar Physics Team Leader,
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

Quoted here

NASA are experts of convenience, apparently. When it is convenient for NASA to comment on climate, NASA speaks with profound authority and great clarity. Occasionally, it is not convenient.

Enhancement of low cloud formation is now regarded by NASA experts as “speculation,” since they are not experts today, except in the ability to identify speculation expertly.

Maybe tomorrow NASA will be climate experts again. In fact, I am certain of it.

Situation Normal – at UN

H/T: Loose Ends

Cap-and-Trade; a brilliant new Financial Opportunity.

That is what the United Nations is ALL ABOUT – financial opportunities. UN is on it, hot!

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

The criticism centres on the UN’s clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.

Credits from the project are being bought by European companies and governments who are unable to meet their carbon reduction targets.

The market for CDM credits is growing fast. At present it is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years. More than 1,000 projects have so far been approved, and 2,000 more are making their way through the process.

A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN’s CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. “They would be built anyway,” says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. “It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.”

More here

The obvious rewards of global warming far exceed the warming. No wonder global warming persists, even while the thermometers turn down. Yanks, a pound is $2; of which you pay only 50 cents.

Source: guardian.co.uk

Global Cooling Real

The temperature that matters most on Earth, that of our oceans, stopped going up at least five years ago. Not only did it stop going up, the temperature of the oceans is decreasing. The cooling of the oceans is not caused by greenhouse warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In fact, it proves rather conclusively that greenhouse warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, or any carbon dioxide at all, is a vast fraud of planetary proportion. Where is this ocean data?

Mum is the word, except: “It is not anything really significant. It may be we are in a period of less rapid warming,” according to Dr. Josh Willis.

That would be fine; except an observed anomaly in the surface, to 2000 meters, of the ocean should be at least 500 times as thermally significant as the same deviation in the atmosphere (I am hoping for comments on this point). The exchange mechanism of energy between ocean and atmosphere is important, of course. That the ocean is a heat reservoir of vast proportion compared to the atmosphere, though, is undeniable.

Except for the reluctance of the guilty parties to recant on the error of their previous incantations, global warming is indeed dead. But the data is already out! There is no need to wait for deniers of science to come clean, however reluctant these may be.

Important “posts” on this topic:

Lorne Gunter: Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Ocean Cooling and Global Warming
The oceans have stopped warming!
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat

Obama: You Have Too Much

You have too much food.

You have too much energy.

You have too many machines.

You have too much fuel.

That’s the reason the rest of the world hates you.

Obama can change it.

The computer program called “global warming” is the new Constitution of the United States; regardless of how cold it may get.

America wants change. And change is less food, less energy, fewer machines, and less fuel, to Obama.

When you live in a mud hut like Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, the change will be complete. Americans will finally be acceptable to the World, according to Michelle and Barack.

H/T: Global Shamming

Obama camp spies endgame in Oregon

. . . Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added. . . .

The Chill Is On

Yes; the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.  The beginning was the Holocene Optimum; or it was the Little Ice Age; or it was Ice Ball Earth.  Or it was the simple, undeniable record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, often far exceeding that of today.   History, and paleoclimatology, is going to repeat.  The burden of proof should be on those wishing to extract the wealth; the deniers of history.

Did someone say “it’s over?”

 

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT Climate Change: Global warming? Don’t worry about it. It’s over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from — greenhouse gases. Read More: Global Warming  The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland — except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets. Of course the IPCC spins the news. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, “and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean’s La Nina current, “part of what we call ‘variability.’ “ If that’s the case, then why can’t the Pacific’s El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a “variability” and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda? Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC’s models. This is not some gas-guzzler’s fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded “the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion” there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures. That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time. It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes “garbage in” and spits “gospel out.” The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.

Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search

Back To Top

• Press Center
• Advertise
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Notice
• Contact Us
• Home

© Copyright 2008 Investor’s Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

Al Gore, Capo of Carbon Racketeers: Banned in Britain

That’s right.  Gore is legally sanctioned.  In the UK, Al Gore can’t raise a farthing – or speak in public about his green investment company  - because it would amount to peddling a false prospectus (as well it should, everywhere).  Why, in the UK?

Mr. Justice Burton, of the High Court of Justice Administrative Court, Royal Courts of Justice, London, found on September 27, 2007, that Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth expounds nine utter falsehoods.    But, the nine falsehoods were only ruled on by the court as exemplary.  A full 20 falsehoods were cited by witness  Professor Robert Merlin Carter.     Al Gore’s fraud is explicitly sanctioned.  His cause has been banned, in Britain. 

Can Al Gore and his carbon mafia be getting a tad anxious?  With no warming evident in the last 10 years, in spite of continuous increase in carbon dioxide, being banned in Britain is only a good start.

British policy advisor says Gore is in ‘panic’ mode

. . .
Gore’s group The Alliance for Climate Protection is currently launching a new $300 million ad campaign that demands reforms in environmental law to help reduce the supposed “climate crisis.” But Monckton points out that in the U.K., Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his “green investment company” because to do so would violate racketeering laws by “peddling a false prospectus.” He says that fact came about after a British high court found Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, riddled with errors.

H/T:  ICECAP

See Also:  Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Target Rich Environment – YOU

(H/T:  Moonbattery  )

No matter how cold it gets, and apparently no matter how much ice piles up in the ocean, Al Gore’s bogus computer model research (and surface station fraud) creates a target-rich environment:  YOU.

I wish I could make a joke about  this , but it seems rather a more severe a problem than “Global Warming.” 

Moonbattery’s Van Helsing refers to this process as “looting,”  however that characterization seems generous.

Apparently, alleged greenhouse gas emissions may cost Alaska power providers $400 million, to relocate the town of Kivalina, presumably away from the coast.  This lawsuit was filed only last week.

Perhaps rigged-up surface stations, providing bogus temperature data, should be brought into compliance, or be removed.  As should be Al Gore.