AGW Canceled

History?  What history?

History? What history?

New York conference expected to draw
up to 1,000 scientists and experts
Global warming crisis “cancelled” by new scientific discoveries

The organizers of a March 2008 conference that brought together more than 500 scientists, economists, and other experts on global warming today unveiled plans to hold a second conference on March 8-10, 2009, once again in New York City

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year’s theme, “Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled,” calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

…The 2008 conference featured presentations by more than 100 prominent scientists and economists from the U.S. and around the world, including Dr. Robert Balling (Arizona State University), Dr. Stanley Goldenberg (NOAA), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University), Dr. Yuri Izrael (IPCC), Dr. Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr. Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris), Dr. S. Fred Singer (Science and Environmental Policy Project), Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), and Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA).

Doug Ross @ Journal story: Global Warming “crisis” officially canceled


Gore Admits: Sign Flipped In Misbehaving AGW Model

Aw, shucks.  Arctic icecap extent is up 31.3% over last year this time.  Yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  Stop fighting it.  Throwing Jim Hansen under the bus, Al Gore stated today that “It’s no wonder the model doesn’t work.  Goofy Hansen got a sign wrong.  I warned him to be careful.  We should have been concerned all along about the REVERSE greenhouse effect; it all makes sense now.  Carbon dioxide is the same dangerous atmospheric pollutant we have always known it was.   And global freezing is a fate far, far worse, planned for us by carbon dioxide, than some balmy global warming which would only enhance the food supply.”

“Be sure to pick up some carbon credits, if you want to stay warm,” says Al.

Reverse Greenhouse Effect Takes Over

Reverse Greenhouse Effect Takes Over

Story here: Ice Reality Check

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?

Nuclear Energy Now Causing Global Warming

What did you expect, Steve Milloy?

In order to re-engineer humanity, some eggs must be broken.

Shortage of energy by itself will make food unavailable for broad slices of humankind, even if the next ice age does not. Economic dystopia is an opportunity for humanity to fix itself; to change; to at long last overcome human greed and self-interest. Progressives fear it not.

Hydroelectric power is also out. It causes global warming, too, in exactly the same way. Only the pathetically impractical sources of energy will be tolerated, until man becomes what progressives intend him to be (dead). After that, he won’t want energy.

Junk Science

Nuclear’s Wake-Up Call

. . . Maryland’s Gov. Martin O’Malley — who is well-regarded by environmentalists for consuming and metabolizing the green Kool-Aid on global warming — supports the Calvert Cliffs expansion. O’Malley apparently realizes that Maryland needs the electricity given the fact that the state is facing rolling blackouts on summer days starting as early as 2011. Moreover, nuclear power is emissions-free, another plus for Maryland’s warmer-in-chief. His support is even more remarkable since he recently barred the installation of wind turbines on public lands.

The governor’s picking nukes over wind must have sent the greens into meltdown. So in response, the desperate greens came up with a bizarre new argument: nuclear power causes global warming.

That’s right, nuclear is the latest form of “dirty” energy. How can that be, you ask? Nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, does it? Well, not directly, the greens argue. But nuclear power “worsens climate change,” says prominent environmentalist Amory Lovins in a new paper, because it diverts money away from alternative energy and efficiency efforts that would otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adding insult to injury, Lovins also says that nuclear power is “grossly uncompetitive, unneeded and obsolete” and “weakens electric reliability and national security.”

The head of Maryland PIRG picked up on Lovins’ line of thinking, telling Carbon Control News (Aug. 8) that “efficiency programs and renewables such as wind and solar can provide more carbon-abatement per dollar while avoiding the downsides of nuclear power.”

The movement to block the Calvert Cliffs plant also has an international component. Greenpeace has taken its anti-nuclear jihad to Finland, where a private utility company is currently building a European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) — a safer, more reliable and cheaper next-generation reactor. But Greenpeace has alleged technical and safety problems with the EPR and misconduct in the Finns’ safety approval process. Though the Finnish regulatory authority has rejected the misconduct claims, it nevertheless announced that it plans further studies on the EPR’s safety.

This, of course, has delighted the opponents of the Calvert Cliffs expansion since the reactor that has been proposed to be built is an EPR.

And the greens aren’t just going after the Calvert Cliffs plant, they are turning their sights on the entire nuclear industry. No doubt this is a direct result of the industry’s effort to expand in the wake of global warming hysteria, which has taken the form of more than 20 applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency for new plant licenses.

Alleviate World Hunger

How alleviate world hunger? In the next Little Ice Age, and the next real Ice Age, inevitably and inexorably coming to Earth, maybe sooner, maybe later, but absolutely coming, especially how alleviate world hunger? When the Earth’s temperature drops by 2.5 degrees centigrade (4.5 degrees Farenheit) and the growing seasons shorten by weeks or months, how alleviate world hunger? Why is Earth greener today than it has been over the history of human observation from space? (See Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause).

To alleviate world hunger, produce more clean carbon dioxide! Carbon dioxide is plant food; and plants make people food. The opposite of pollution, carbon dioxide is necessary for the Earth’s ecosystems. More carbon dioxide means more crop production, simply. For certain, more carbon dioxide does not make Earth any warmer, as recent temperature observation shows:

Earth cools, as carbon dioxide increases

Earth cools, as carbon dioxide increases

Monthly Satellite Temperature Chart by Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP

Alleviate world hunger produce more clean carbon dioxide

. . .Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.

Some politicians complain that the United States with only 3% of the world population uses 25% of the energy. But the clean carbon dioxide which we produce is increasing food production everywhere on earth. China, on the other hand, is building new power plants at a record rate using the abundant domestic supply of coal they have and has now passed the United States as the leading producer of carbon dioxide. Although their coal has a high sulfur content, they are building the new plants without any pollution controls. The sulfur dioxide which these power plants are releasing to the atmosphere, besides smelling like rotten eggs is, in sunlight, readily converted to sulfur trioxide, the highly solublegas responsible for most acid rain.

Much more, here.

Democrat Climatology and Economics

1. Increasing the supply of oil will not reduce its price.
2. Photovoltaics work GREAT at night; A watt at night is just as cheap as a watt at noon, with photovoltaics. (When you need energy at night, you should REMEMBER the energy you had at noon).
3. Silicon has been unavailable to make photovoltaics and chips because of Bush and Cheney and Big Oil.
4. Higher transportation costs of food will help Americans lose weight.
5. Wind power is fine, in red states.
6. The oceans temperatures are insignificant if they are going down.
7. Cosmic rays are a Republican invention.
8. ANWR and Florida off-shore are exquisitely fragile ecosystems, because oil exists under them.
9. Antarctic ice is just about gone.
10. Chinese environmental practices are far advanced beyond American Big Oil and thus not threatening the exquisitely fragile ecosystem off-shore Florida localized above the oil.
11. Economic progress, if centrally planned, will revolutionize humanity (as it has before). This can be called “change.”
12. Temperature is insignificant if it is going down.
13. American oil companies have caused the high gasoline prices in the US and China.
14. Commodity markets have a rule that speculators only can purchase oil on margin; and not sell it on margin.
15. Speculators are unconcerned about the supply of oil increasing. They will only continue to drive prices up no matter how much supply is increased.
16. Comprehensive, central planning makes the best economy. Energy is only one example.
17. Democrats are good at planning oil production. See?
18. Prudhoe Bay’s exquisitely fragile ecosystem only looks healthy today.
19. The brilliance of ethanol from corn is a shining example of the benefits of comprehensive central planning.
20. Grain products cause obesity anyway.

Much more to come. Or add yours.

Investigate US Congress

The US Congress throttles oil supply with whimsical prohibitions; and sputters about “global warming.”

Oil demand in China, India, and ROW grows much faster than oil demand in the United States.

US “Big Oil” does not increase demand in China; nor does it throttle supply in the United States.

There is one, exactly one, guilty party: The United States Congress.

Taxpayers should demand information from the US Congress on why it prohibits oil production here.

Why does the US Congress prohibit new nuclear power generation here, when it is commonplace in the ROW?

Is the US Congress enriching itself by selling useless carbon credits; while paralyzing the economy of the United States?

These people, the US Congress, point their fingers at “speculators” or “big oil.”

Drill here, drill now, pay less. Supply, demand, and the US Congress set oil and gasoline prices.

Don’t believe that speculators, or “big oil,” determines supply and demand.

The US Congress has decided there will be no supply. Speculators know it; you should too.