Red Hot Lies–Global warming blasted in New Book
Mar 13th, 2009 by David Anderson
Scientists are breaking the cone of silence placed over them by the hundreds monthly. This Earth Day take a moment to break through the propaganda and see why the Global Warming movement is falling apart. It could be that the computer models used by it do not reflect current reality therefore should not be relied upon for predictions. They are not only off regarding temperature projections, but can’t even get the arctic ice measurements within 100,000 square miles. Unfortunately the last administration made a poor ruling declaring the polar bear threatened based upon this highly flawed measurement in spite of the fact polar bear numbers have multiplied 6 fold in the last 30 years. Now we are being asked to impoverish Americans with a new cap and tax carbon regime, shouldn’t we ask a few questions first?
One Man is. Christopher Horner’s new book
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed
, is going to spark a debate which must happen. The global warming advocates are trying to shutdown debate and protect a corrupt fiefdom. This book is building upon a counter revolution of thought and freedom.
His claims border on being sensational. The claims are amazing and deserve to be addressed.
Threats, lies, and propaganda — The real global warming agenda:
Al Gore’s desperate fear of exposure of the weak foundations of his alarmism: he cancels interviews when his handlers cannot control the questioning in advance and bars the media from his talks.
The alarmist industry engages in outright efforts to censor those who dare disagree with its tenets or agenda — including impediments placed in the path of climate realists to speak, participate, and even to publish.
There is no such thing as “global temperature” or even “U.S. temperature,” but only weighted averages from adjusted readings from many different measuring stations (which means that if you place your measuring equipment in the wrong places, you could help start a global warming panic!)
The implicit and sometimes explicit threat of retaliation experienced by academics and government employees at the hands of global warming fanatics.
Al Gore’s co-producer Laurie David: How she followed their utterly disingenuous and on occasion dishonest film with a book aimed at children — and why global warming alarmists in general focus so much of their labors on winning over children to their cause.
Don’t tell Perry!
This Horner character is a lawyer and a conservative talking head who obviously knows little of the science of global warming. Read the quote supplied by David: It is a political attack laced with innuendo. And the one paragraph on global temperature is a straw man – not the word “if”.
Hube and David, you have to do much better than Horner to make your case using science!
Again I ask: what is the effect of insolation variations on global temperatures?
Is there a variation of the surface temperature on Mars? Has anyone checked this out to see if there is a pattern?
Just what was the cause of the onset and demise of the Little Ice age?
Correction: Note the word if.
And here: http://cei.org/people/christopher-c-horner
Art, I will get back to your questions tomorrow.
Man-made climate change is just hot air, swallowed hook, line and sinker by naive dupes. Remember, there’s a pinkish hue to the green movement; the agenda is nefarious.
It is futile to try to debate you Rick, or Hube, about the scientific consensus conclusion that we are in the midst of significant anthropogenic global warming, because with you two it is ideological/political.
It is well established that this global warming has been with us since the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the use of fossil fuels accelerated dramatically, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in correlation with the global temperature rise, in addition to the correlation between the measured global temperature rise and the measured atmospheric carbon dioxide rise.
Moreover, carbon dioxide (as well as water vapor and methane) is fundamentally an atmospheric heat trap, in that it is transparent to UV radiation from the sun, but opaque to the IR radiation reflected from the earth. No one questions this fundamental property.
Regarding your question about the little ice age, it is over. According to the conclusion at the IPCC meeting:
“It is not certain if the LIA was a global phenomenon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as “a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C,” and suggests that “current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.”“
Nevertheless, you asked about the causes: “Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further speculates that massive depopulation in the Americas after the European contact in the early 1500s had similar effects. A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon sequestration via reforestation in the Americas contributed to the Little Ice Age.”
Regarding warming observed on Mars (and Pluto), the prevailing opinion is: “Scientists are not sure whether the Martian warming is entirely due to Mars-specific forces or may be the result of other forces, such as increasing solar output, which would explain much of the recent asserted warming of the Earth as well.
Sallie Baliunas, chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. Marshall Institute, said, “Pluto, like Mars, is also undergoing warming.” However, Baliunas speculated it is “likely not the sun but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto” causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.”
Thus, surface warming on Mars, still of unknown origin, does not rule out anthropogenic global warming on earth.
“It is futile to try to debate you Rick, or Hube, about the scientific consensus…..”
There is no such ‘consensus,’ unless your reading is limited to the News Journal and Washington Post.
Rick: Don’t waste your fingers on the keyboard, my friend.
While I do think we need to make a real and serious effort to become more environmentally-friendly (how much polluted air and water can we really deal with as that does get worse over time), the global warming debate is just that, debate. Neither side leaves me feeling overly convinced one way or the other. They do present strong arguments, but strong enough to constantly throw the other in doubt.
I do not believe that ignorance is an answer, though, and that will only further drop us into the muck of pollution. Look at what’s going on up around the Edgemoor Industrial sites right now with the dioxin and ash pile disposal (or capping-off of piles). The ever-on-going problems at the Valero complex near Delaware City (Valero, nee Premcor, nee Motiva, nee something, nee something and so on). NRG in Sussex. All that discharge, in air, ground, and water is horrid. How many wateries are safe for fishing (catch-and-eat)?
It’s not just what comes out of your car’s exhaust pipe, or the discharge by-product of other energy consumption, but also the entire process to get it from crude form to your home or auto. It’s a big picture problem.
I would love to have solar on my home’s roof, but I can’t afford it. With my commute, I’d love to buy a hybrid, but I can’t afford it. I want these things because it means that much less pollution from production and it means that much less money going out of my wallet! So, instead of seeing it as a global warming response, I see it as a pollution response. Pollution is very real, it’s tangible, and the effects are all around us, from waterways, tainted air, and damn it, the health of our own local populations.
I don’t get the immediate scowl and disgust that comes along when energy-friendly or earth-friendly comes up. There’s an upfront cost for sure, but the long-run is tremendous in the consumer’s favor. Is the disdain from feeling like it’s shoved in your face? Has anyone ever considered the in-your-face was the unavoidable consequence from years of ignoring the relatively gentler pleas for action against pollution?
I would say that you have a good point. I think that you know that I do favor sensible environmental policies. I recycle. I do want to encourage cleaner energy sources. I do believe that we should safe guard our drinking water.
The deal is that I sincerely believe that diveriting resources to fight global warming diverts resources from these objectives. I would love to run more vehicals on natural gas like the Pickens Plan. I would love to turn trash into desiel. These type of proposals would help clean up our environmnet, but the extreme global warming crowd thinks CO2 is a pollutant. They would rather have no change than change which would give us fewer landfills, less energy dependence, and cleaner air. Then you find out all of the money some of these ring leaders are making off of their alarmism. It makes you wonder if they really do care.
On my point about the debate, the debate is stale-mated, in my opinion, and unfortuantely, is diverting attention off of topics such as I mentioned in comment #9. Both sides are guilty of that diversion, intended or not.
I will say the ever-increasing emissions of CO2 is not good, no matter how you shake it, especially with less resources available to consume it. Funny thing is, though, with proper attention to pollution restraint with simple alterations to lifestyle habits, that emission concern can begin to wane.
As I said before, it is a big-picture problem, but one where so many want a big-picture solution in the short-term. Rarely will that be successful. It is better in the long-term to achieve more focused milestones now, but of course, the naysayers would have to be willing, as well. That is something that has been a problem for years, more like decades.
Um, David. That post I put up a few days ago about the “Vote Earth” initiative, it’s not so big a deal. One hour off isn’t a big thing. If it can show there is a difference, then great. If not, then it’s one hour. At least it was tried. It truly is a small ask.
Can I be like everyone else and tell you that I will do it and then don’t? I want you to feel good my friend, but I really don’t believe in this save the planet stuff. The plant isn’t going anywhere. I want to leave the planet better for my being here, but I do not believe returning to a primitive lifestyle or jesting affordable power is the way to do it.
I don’t believe that our increase in CO2 is a bad thing. I believe that it will be beneficial to plant life and crop yields. 55 of our top botanist and related scientists including nobel prize winners said the same thing. I just don’t feel it. I figure that if we move from carbon based fuels for power, we will be safe either way.
I don’t mind hedging my bets. If I am wrong, I don’t want my children or their future children to suffer. Especially when I believe from an entirely national security and foreign control of our economy perspective that we need to do so. If the environment benefits, I am all the happier. I just don’t want to take emotional and extreme actions which will impoverish our children for no good reason. Can we have a balanced approach? (I am talking less about you than others who take an extreme approach.)
The socialist was Gerald R. Ford in his Whip Inflation Now speech, October 1974.
Which was the original “malaise” speech, attributing America’s economic problems to psychological factors (“If we all just wear these WIN buttons…”).
The Dem Congress killed Ford’s surcharge on the wealthy, and passed a stimulus and tax cut bill, which Ford vetoed (the override failed).
My point in going on this tangent was to refute you young ‘uns who grew up thinking everything bad that happened in the 1970s was Carter’s fault. Carter didn’t solve the problems but he didn’t cause them either.
Links to the Ford speech are kind of interesting….
youtube.com/watch?v=JULw8qsnHcY
millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3283
That is why Reagan was backed by Helms and others in an attempt to get rid of Ford. Thanks for the history lesson.
I agree that Carter didn’t cause all of the problems of the 70′s. He did continue them and added to them. He did some good things. That is true with all Presidents. They do some good and some bad. In Carter’s case, I think that he was more on the negative side.
What can you say about someone so naive that he sent his own daughter to the D.C. public schools. That decision was more inept than his stagflation economics.
Now that may be one of the most obvious thread-jackings I have ever experienced!
Sheesh, David, I am not suggesting a throwback to “primiative” ages. If that’s what you think, then you are acting just as extreme in reaction as groups such as ELF (just without the eco-terrorism). The mantra is an equal-but-opposite: Forgo all your modern ways and return to caveman existance or die to be followed up by we can’t be eco-conscious for it will return us to the dark where we read by candlelight and poop in the forest and use leaves from the forest floors!!!
That is where the stalemating and rediculous rhetoric lies and will forever keep us in an occluded state of mind (both ends).
Can I be like everyone else and tell you that I will do it and then don’t? Does it always have to be a condenscending insult from you?
I don’t believe that our increase in CO2 is a bad thing. I believe that it will be beneficial to plant life and crop yields. 55 of our top botanist and related scientists including nobel prize winners said the same thing. In what perspective, though? I have read/heard several agricultural experts go off on how the planting zones are shifting…not in theory, but reality. Did you know that official planting zones have been rewritten and already are under consideration for another remapping? Yeah, crops will flourish, as in northward shifts.
To my point, ever-increasing emissions of CO2 is not good, no matter how you shake it, especially with less resources available to consume it. Does it have to be realized locally before it concerns you?
Yes
Wow. Well, at least you can admit it. I’ll give you that. I certainly have come across enough people in my life that would cover before admitting. I think you then see things either with blinders or rose-color glasses, but your honesty I can’t question.
Climate shifts happen. I can’t control them and I don’t worry about trying. I don’t believe mankind has much to do with so called gobal climate change. The Sun does. The rest of our solar system was experiencing change as well. Coincidentally it matched increase solar activity. Now that the solar activity has fallen, we shall see what is related to the Sun and what isn’t. Two years does not a trend make, but you have to agree that the computer models arguing solar influence being the predominate influence have been winning on both sides of the equation while the CO2 models have failed.
I am skeptical because that is where the facts take me. When I see a President of the United States wanting to implement policies which just a few years ago would have been advocated by the extreme wing of the environmental movement based upon models which can’t predict the present let alone the future, it concerns me. Poverty is the enemy of humanity not CO2. These policies if rushed in some panic will create more poverty and human suffering. I don’t think that it is worth it.
Let me get back to the opening I put in #11:
The Global Warming debate, in my mind, has ceased to educate anyone once it became the my-dad’s-bigger-than-your-dad argument of elementary playgrounds. Rather than look for relevancy and points to educate, all the arguing sides care to do anymore is argue flaws of the other.
My concern is around the polluting effects of production by-products, whether it be the production of industry or of your auto. The only place that you could rightly accuse me of getting into the global warming debate is when I pointed out the ever-increasing CO2 output with less resources around to absorb it. There are measurements that the CO2 ppm are in fact increasing. I am not stating this for greenhouse gas arguments, either. The reason I have a problem with it is because humans have this tendency to not function well in an abundance of CO2. With less abililty for it to be absorbed by other bilological matter, yes, that is a little concerning. It may not happen in my lifetime, but to hell if you think I could look at my children and willfully condemn them to a worse fate, or their eventual (hopefully) children! I have this tendency to see beyond me on issues like this.
Plant a couple of trees and grow a garden. Don’t destroy prosperity. CO2 is not some sort of poison. It is naturally occurring and the releases are from naturally occurring products. If you increase the CO2 concentration a several hundred parts per million than you will get more plant life which will absorb more of it and create more percipitation which will dissolve more CO2 and take it out of the atmosphere. The earth has a self correcting mechanism. We don’t need to rush on this. Your grandchildren won’t be affected by this nor will their grandchildren and by that time it will be a moot issue anyway. Fossil fuels will be too precious for their other uses to burn in about 30 years.
That is another reason why I am so big on promoting alternative fuels. It is inevitable and we will either lead or follow. Right now 80% of the alternative fuel industry is overseas even though most of the technology was invented here.
I am sure that you and I both agree on the end game. The only question is the road there.