GLOBAL WARMING? -New Evidence Debunks Manmade Global Warming!

Global Warming Hoax!



Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 12.36.36 PM 

Obama’s Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience

Tuesday, 25
June 2013
Written by  

Obama’s Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience

President Obama was playing to his most extreme “green” constituency in his climate and energy speech at Georgetown University today, blasting global warming skeptics as “flat-earth society” ostriches with their heads in the sand. President Obama said he does not have “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”

“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” Obama claimed that the call for urgent action to stem the threat of global warming is based on the “overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements.”

The president apparently has not gotten the memos; his Oval Office staff must be keeping him in the dark concerning very important recent developments in climate science and even more significant developments in climate and energy policies. As we reported yesterday, some of the leading voices in the global warming alarmist choir have been admitting that the climate catastrophes predicted by the computer models have not materialized and that the alleged “scientific consensus” is a fraud. The influential British journal, The Economist, suggested in an article on June 20, that “the public has been systematically deceived” for years with all this talk of certainty and consensus about dire consequences attributed to man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW), and the supposed urgent need for drastic, costly, painful public policies to address the “crisis.”

“The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it,” Obama said in his Georgetown speech.

The president seems to be unaware that even top climate alarmists have admitted that there has been no evidence of global warming for at least the past 15 years. This absence of warming has been the source of much head scratching, debating, and theorizing in the climate activist circles. As we have reported, the UK Met Office and Professor Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, are among the many alarmists who have been forced to acknowledge the reality of the lack of any warming trend or crisis. The New American’s recent articles (see below) on the false consensus list dozens of top scientists who have defected from the alarmist ranks, and provide links showing literally thousands of scientists contest the warming theories President Obama champions as the basis for his energy policy proposals.

The president’s energy program, outlined in this White House Fact Sheet and detailed in “The President’s Climate Action Plan,” both released today, would place onerous new restrictions on coal fired power plants and other fossil fuels and would direct billions more dollars into funding “renewable energy” sources, such as solar and wind. As we have reported, these are policies that have already proven to be enormously wasteful here in the United States, and in Germany and other European nations (see hereand here) have proven to be disastrous.

Spain has already shown us the destruction that can be wrought by the kind of government-mandated “green jobs” President Obama is proposing. Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez is an Associate Professor at King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain, where he teaches Applied Economics at the Environmental Science Faculty. In March 2009, along with two colleagues from the same University, Dr. Calzada released a major study on the Spanish experience with “green jobs.”

In testimony to the U.S. Congress, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Prof. Calzada presented highlights from the study, including these sobering facts:

• For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost.

• Only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, and most of the rest of the working positions are only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies.

• Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job,”

• Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs.

• Each “green” megawatt installed on average destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy, ?and in the case of solar photovoltaics, the number reaches 8.99 jobs per megawatt hour installed.

“Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy transformation,” Dr. Calzada told the congressmen. “But our research shows that Spain’s policies were economically destructive. When the president of a country with a relatively low unemployment rate like the US decides to learn how to create jobs from a country like Spain with the highest unemployment rate among developed countries, it should be in a field where that country has a demonstrable track record of job creation. Unfortunately, this is not the case of job creation in Spain through public support for renewable energy.”

James Lovelock, considered by many to be one of the “founding father” scientists of the environmentalist movement in the U.K., has been unsparing in his criticism of wind power and his former global warming alarmism, which he now says grossly exaggerated the non-crisis of climate change. Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s most famous “greens” and a longtime AGW alarmist and champion of renewable energies, has likewise admitted to having been very, very wrong on these matters. Like Lovelock and many other leading scientists, Vahrenholt is calling for an end to the climate change hysteria and an end to the “green” lobby attacks on conventional fossil fuels.

“The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience,” by the American Enterprise Institute, is one of many reports that surveys the economic and environmental disasters caused by renewable energy policies in the EU. This report focuses on the renewables follies in Denmark, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Even MSM organs such as USA Today, which normally hew to the climate catastrophist line, have reported on Europe’s renewables debacle. Instead of trying to ridicule renowned scientist skeptics by recycling Al Gore’s tired and discredited quips about scientific consensus and “flat-earth society” opponents, President Obama’s speechwriters would serve him better by acquainting him with more of the latest climate research and analyses of the failed energy policies of those countries that have already gone down the road the president is proposing for us.

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked

German Firms Flee to U.S. to Avoid Staggering “Green” Energy Costs

Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books

Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

Global Climate Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago, UK Met Office Admits

Germany Cuts Subsidies to Floundering Solar Industry

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 12.38.52 PM

Photo of President Obama at Georgetown: AP Images

Global Warming?

Temperature Up ‘Very Close to Zero’ Over 15 Years

June 24, 2013 – 12:56 PM

Subscribe to Penny Starr RSS
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter
Global Warming Record
A flock of Geese fly past the smokestacks at theJeffrey Energy Center coal power plant as the suns sets near Emmett, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)


( – In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.”

“That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.”

Spiegel asked Storch why the Earth’s temperature has not risen significantly in the past 15 years despite 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities.

“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” said Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany.

“We’re facing a puzzle,” Storch said. “Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.

“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years,” he added.

“That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.

Storch said the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have to address these facts in its next climate assessment report due out late next year.

The interview includes this exchange about what this 15-year data showing virtually no rise in the Earth’s temperature means going forward.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

In the interview, Storch also addressed the “hysteria” over global warming by some advocates.

“Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?” the interviewer asked.

“Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate,” Storch said. “There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, ‘Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!’ over any natural disaster.

“But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones — and that’s a good thing,” Storch said.

Storch, however, did not dismiss global warming completely when asked if changes in how scientist measure and predict the Earth’s climate will throw the whole concept into doubt.

“I don’t believe so,” Storch said. “We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.”

– See more at:


Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 12.37.38 PM

Here comes the sunny skies:

President Obama pivots to climate change

By Jennifer Harper – The Washington Times

June 23, 2013, 12:28PM

There’s been so much stormy weather around the White House in recent weeks that it’s no wonder that President Obama has heeded the radar and returned to the familiar, vapid region of climate change.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama heads to Georgetown University in the nation’s capital to remind his green-minded pals, global alarmists and fierce critics alike that he has not forgotten a promise of five months ago.

“In my inaugural address, I pledged that America would respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations,” the president says in a new video that is punctuated with nice piano music and outdoor imagery that Al Gore would certainly approve of.

“This Tuesday, I’ll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go – a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it,” Mr. Obama says. “This is a serious challenge – but it’s one uniquely suited to America’s strengths.”

What’s missing so far is any authentic discussion of the flawed science and data manipulation that has gone into much climate warming reasoning. The jury is still out of whether mankind or cow-emitted methane has caused either the rising or falling of the planet’s temperature. Also missing is that fact that opportunists have arrived: federal spending on climate warming “research” is approaching $2 billion a year, according to some press reports.

Also in the mix: environmental concerns and climate change languish at the bottom of the list of public worries say several opinion polls, bested by, oh, you know. The economy, jobs, national security.

Mr. Obama will call for the help of scientists, farmers who can grow the plants for biofuel, engineers with an eye for new energy, and workers to “build the foundation for a clean energy economy.”

Pretty climate rhetoric?

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


125 International Scientists Rebuke UN for Climate Claims in Open Letter: ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused extreme weather of past few years’ Read the Full Article

‘Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence. The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased’

Friday, November 30, 2012By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

“We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”

Full Letter:
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.

Signed by:

  1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
  2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
  3. Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (physics (thermodynamics) and chemistry), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  4. J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, focus on analyzing climate forecasts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
  5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  6. James R. Barrante, Ph.D. (chemistry, Harvard University), Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, focus on studying the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2, Cheshire, Connecticut, U.S.A.
  7. Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science, Birmingham, U.K.), FInstEng Aus Principal research scientist (ret.), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia…for entire list read more>>

New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change: ‘Ice sheet melt massively overestimated, satellites show’

 Read the Full Article

‘The possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all…At current melt rates, Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters). Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount’

Friday, December 07, 2012By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Get updates by email 
  1. Troubled UN climate talks stall Greenpeace: ‘This is about human survival’
  2. Watch another TV climate debate: Morano debates warmist Thom Hartman on Russian TV– Warmist Compares Co2 to tobacco
  3. New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change: ‘Ice sheet melt massively overestimated, satellites show’
  4. Heavy Snowfall Rejuvenates Himalayan Glaciers: ‘New Evidence Undermines Climate Alarmism’ — ‘The abundance of snow on mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand Himalayan glaciers’
  5. NY Times: ‘Winter as we know it is on borrowed time’ (according to a doctoral candidate in earth science at the U. of New Hampshire)
  6. Dr. Hans Labohm On Scepticism In Europe: ‘The Tide Is Turning…Very Much Alive And Kicking’
  7. A problem: nearly one third of CO2 emissions occured since 1998, and it hasn’t warmed
  8. Al Gore criticizes Obama on global warming
  9. New paper finds a significant decrease in Pacific tropical cyclones — Published in The Journal of Climate
  10. New paper finds an accelerating increase of snow accumulation on Greenland — Published in The Journal of Climate
  11. Sea Level Falling Around The US: ‘Most of the US has seen little or no sea level rise over the last 20 years’
  12. Warmist Joe Romm on Morano’s CNN debate with Bill Nye: ‘CNN Still Gives Equal Time To Anti-Science Disinformation’
  13. German Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls: Sea Level Rise Has Slowed 34% Over The Last Decade!
  14. Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming — ‘Escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his UN credentials’
  15. Update: Read Now: CNN climate debate between Morano & Nye now has enhanced transcript with embedded links to Morano’s citations for all of his key points


The experts explain the global warming myth:

Richard Lindzen

= ]


The Big Lie of Global Warming [1 of 8]


for more video on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

click here

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Published September 14, 2011


The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday,

Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably

led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot,

a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me

is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,”his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned.

He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word “incontrovertible” had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

“The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate

a global surface warming of 0.74 °C ( /- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter

from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100

co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults

believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support

their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was “not at all likely.”

Read more:

Nobel Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming





New Evidence Debunks Manmade Global Warming

New research from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations indicates that cosmic rays and the sun —

not manmade carbon emissions —are the major factors influencing global climate.

“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)

and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating,” writes Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, in Canada’s Financial Post.

“The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.”

The findings, published in the journal Nature, come from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research,

one of the world’s largest centers for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than

600 universities and national laboratories, according to Solomon.

CERN — the organization that invented the World Wide Web — built a stainless steel chamber that precisely re-created the Earth’s atmosphere.

“In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done —

demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.” And the cloudier it is, the cooler it will be, Solomon notes.

“Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth

from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.”

So when the sun’s magnetic field is strongest, fewer cosmic rays impact the Earth, which in turn leads to decreased cloud formation and warmer temperatures.

The link between cosmic rays and global warming was first proposed by two Danish scientists in 1996, and was immediately denounced by the IPCC.

But CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental physicist, accepted the Danes’ theory. He told the scientific press in 1998 that it “will probably be able to

account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”

It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to proceed with his plan to create the chamber that replicates the Earth’s atmosphere and has produced the recent results.

But CERN “remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success,” observes Solomon, author of

“The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”

CERN told Kirkby and his team to downplay the results by stating “that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

Solomon concludes: “CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science.

But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.”



Scientists Slam Link Between Hurricanes and Global Warming


Posted: August 29, 2011

tAs Hurricane Irene whimpers off to Canada, earlier suggestions that it and predictions of a harsh 2011 hurricane season can be linked to global warming are being slammed in a new report from skeptical scientists.

Just like the hyped predictions of disaster to the East Coast from Irene over the weekend, the new report says that models used by global warming scientists “over-estimate” the the warming trends of the globe to back up their warnings of future droughts, killer storms, and famine. [See a slide show of 10 reasons Americans aren’t talking about climate change.]

While “Climate Change Reconsidered”  from the Heartland Institute, does agree that man has hurt his environment, causing events like flooding, it’s not because of pollution or other greenhouse gasses cited by proponents of global warming like former Vice President Al Gore. In the case of flooding, the report argues, it’s mostly because mankind is bad at construction. “Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding,” it says.

As for hurricanes, like Irene, the skeptical scientists report that storm frequency does not track with global temperature fluctuations and they add that historical trends show that storms were worse during the Medieval period of about 950–1250 AD.

The scientists who headed the project are well-known in their field and are led by global warming critic Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Their report, provided to Whispers today, comes as the war over global warming is getting hot. Gore, for example, last week called skeptics this generation’s racists, and Democrats andRepublicans are still fighting over President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal and new anti-pollution regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Also, global warming is making a debut on the presidential stage with GOP candidates like Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioning it.  [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP presidential field.]

Like those who say science proves the existence of man-made global warming, the skeptics also are armed with historical trends and science that suggest that current global warming is just part of an up and down trend over centuries.

What’s unusual about the report is that it says temporary global warming has a human benefit in curbing weather-related deaths. “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths,” concludes the report.

The Cap and Trade Con Exposed -

It’s your money they want – It’s a “Tax” for Goldman Sachs

 flv= /]

Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique

 flv= /]

U.N. says climate talks will miss Kyoto deadline

  • Analysis & Opinion
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) addresses a news conference in Bonn June 6, 2011. REUTERS/Ina Fassbender

By Gerard Wynn

BONN, Germany | Mon Jun 6, 2011 12:01pm EDT

(Reuters) – U.N. talks have run out of time to meet a December 2012 deadline to put in place a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse gases, the U.N.’s top climate official said Monday.

The main aim of the U.N. talks process was to agree a legally binding deal by 2012 but it has gradually turned to mobilizing voluntary action and funds to fight global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol binds almost 40 industrialized countries to emissions cuts from 2008-2012. Poor and emerging economies want to extend the pact, while industrialized nations prefer to replace it. READ MORE>>




Is the air getting Hotter…
or is it just a lot of Hot Air Propaganda?


Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts

Jan. 28 2011 –


This column was originally published on Dec. 27, 2010.

As 2010 draws to a close, do you remember hearing any good news from the mainstream media about climate? Like maybe a headline proclaiming “Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”? Or “NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase: Alarmists Fear Climate Science Budgets in Peril”? Or even anything bad that isn’t blamed on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming–of course other than what is attributed to George W. Bush? (Conveniently, the term “AGW” covers both.)

Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season? Opportunities to capitalize on those disasters were certainly not lost on some U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change officials. A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth announced “Experts warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.”

But there was a problem. Christopher Landsea, a top U.S. expert on the subject, repeatedly notified the IPCC that no research had been conducted to support that claim–not in the Atlantic basin, or in any other basin. After receiving no replies, he publicly resigned from all IPCC activities. And while the press conference received tumultuous global media coverage, Mother Nature didn’t pay much attention. Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.

Much global warming alarm centers upon concerns that melting glaciers will cause a disastrous sea level rise. A globally viewed December 2005 BBC feature alarmingly reported that two massive glaciers in eastern Greenland, Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim, were melting, with water “racing to the sea.” Commentators urgently warned that continued recession would be catastrophic. READ MORE:





How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored

Feb. 3 2011 – 10:39 am |

My new book, Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, is dedicated to Al Gore, whose invention of the Internet made it possible–and whose invention of facts made it necessary. Beginning with the aggressively hyped 1988 U.S. Senate hearings he organized, no one has done more to melt down complacent minds with stoked-up claims of fossil-fueled climate peril.

In 2006 Gore launched an initial three-year, $300 million “Alliance for Climate Protection” media campaign to promote greenhouse gas reductions. While ads appearing in national television, print, radio, and online outlets were directed to diverse audiences, the ultimate target group was government legislators. As he stated, “NASCAR fans, churchgoers, labor union members, small businessmen, engineers, hunters, spokesmen, corporate leaders, you name it–where public opinion goes, federal policy will follow.”

An example is an early TV segment, narrated by William H. Macy, showing footage of American soldiers storming beaches of Normandy during World War II, a civil rights march, and a moon landing. The message linked these critical historic events to an urgent call for action. “We can’t wait for someone else to solve the climate crisis. We need to act, and we need to do it now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis”. READ MORE:


Global warming hoax & Cap and Trade Scam


Cap-and-Trade Fantasies In Disneyland

Feb. 15 2011 – 3:38 pm

California, marching to the beat of its own drum, is on the road to another economic minefield of its own making. On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster. Resulting cap-and-trade booby traps will be triggered in 2012 when the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is implemented. This legislation authorizes unelected officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a program enabling companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions to sell “allowances” to others that need them to meet reduction regulations targeted at 15% by 2020.

Well, there is still an outside chance that this won’t happen. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith has recently ruled that CARB will be barred from implementing the proposed ARB 32 plan because it didn’t complete an environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act to determine if there are better ways to accomplish the same objectives. Want to hear the really funny part? Okay, get ready for this. According to Investor’s Business Daily, one of the plaintiffs in the case that originally backed ARB 32 passage, the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, joined the suit because it determined the proposed implementation of the plan was “too friendly to business.”

If ARB 32 goes forward CARB will give away allowances to the state’s 500 largest greenhouse gas emitters, letting those that reduce them sell excess allowances to others that don’t. CARB would later charge for those allowances to raise state revenues. They also seem inclined to allow up to 8% of the greenhouse gas reductions to be met through purchases of “offset credits” obtained from developing nations who purport to have realized emission reductions. Of course such transactions will lack transparency, and will most certainly be rife with fraud. In addition, they will not only increase energy costs, but also accelerate flows of capital and exports of jobs out of the state.

It’s not as if the state doesn’t have enough problems already. California has lost 34% of its industrial base since 2001, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (12.4%), and has run up unfunded pension liabilities for its state and local public employees that may be as much as $500 billion (roughly 17% of the nation’s $3 trillion total). A recent study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute predicts that AB 32 will produce an additional 150,000 state job losses by 2012, growing to 1.3 million by 2020. A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that the new legislation will “result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year”.

Cap-and-trade is typically promoted as an “environmental justice” initiative. This misleading claim is based upon three errant and deceptive premises: (1) that the legislation will help protect our planet from dangerous climate change and pollution; (2) that it is needed to wean California and the rest of the country and world away from excessive energy consumption; and (3) that it will incentivize energy technology and conservation innovations that will lead to independence from fossils and foreign oil.  READ MORE…






Empty ad slot (#1)!


Empty ad slot (#1)!



fox news


Website Protection


nordstorms sale!

NORDSTROM -  Shop the Clearance Sale at Nordstrom. FREE Shipping. FREE Returns.


Boston Proper, Inc.



Neiman Marcus Last Call (Neiman Marcus)


NORDSTROM - Save up to 40% on Beauty Value Sizes



1-800 Flowers

Color Their World with a Smile! Fall Flowers & Gifts Starting at $29.99. Only at!

Barnes & Nobles

Barnes & Noble


Donna Karan

Donna Karan


Very Bradley Christmas

Vera Bradley Designs, Inc.


Plow & Hearth

Life is Good fall



NORDSTROM - Shop Holiday Beauty Trends




Barnes & Noble

Barnes & Nobles rent

Barnes & Noble


Gardener's Supply Company

Nordstorms Mother of the Bride dresses

NORDSTROM - Shop Mother-of-the-Bride Dresses




NORDSTROM - Shop Cashmere from Nordstrom Men's Shop.



Perfect invitations, great looks, great style


NORDSTROM - Shop Burberry Gifts for All








J.McLaughlin Men's Sweaters



NORDSTROM - Shop New Fall Favorites from TopShop

Macy’s sale

Pac Sun




Cutter and Buck, Inc.



Barnes & Noble


Waterford Crystal












NORDSTROM - Shop Toys & Gifts for Kids










Vera Bradley Designs, Inc.

CHINA - Click Here!