Concentrations of greenhouse gases, the major cause of global warming, are at their highest levels ever recorded and are still climbing, the U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday.

The head of the agency, Michel Jarraud, said the trend could be pushing the world towards the most pessimistic assessments of the rise in temperatures expected in coming decades and said this underlined the need for urgent action.

EVERYBODY PANIC! WE’RE ALL GONNA D……… oh, wait a moment

Picture via Watts Up With That?

Something seems wrong. CO2 keeps going up, but, there are all those strange fluctuations in the temperature. Heck, the temps even go down. Should a greenhouse gas, which, by definition, traps solar rays causing the Earth to heat up, cause the temps to go down? Weird, huh?

Interestingly, the UN press release says the CO2 concentration is at 385.2 ppm, with a huge jump of .2 ppm in 2008. Quite a few outlets say 388. Some say 384.38. So, what is the concentration? Eh, doesn’t matter. Even if it is going up, it doesn’t appear to correlate to actual temperature.

Live version

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade’s worth of correspondence from a British university’s computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the internet by the hackers.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade’s worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1000 e-mails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

“It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I’m sure that is not a coincidence,” Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado.

At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.

Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. “I personally feel violated,” he said. “I’m appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they’ve been taken out of context.”

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” He said the comment is presented by sceptics as evidence scientists can’t explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research centre’s director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he’d used the word trick “as in a clever thing to do.”

Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails “looks awkward at best,” particularly messages which criticise climate change sceptics.

SOURCE

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

So, what the AP is saying is that the Kyoto Protocol had less value than a roll of Charmin? And all those whining about “Bush pulling the US out of Kyoto” were full of mule fritters? (Of course, Bush couldn’t pull us out of something we were never in.) Of course, based on reality, climate change has accelerated. In the opposite way. It’s getting cooler. But, the media shouldn’t let reality get in the way of Progressive Politics. Anyhow

The world’s oceans have risen by about an inch and a half (over the past 12 years)

Hmm. Scary, eh? The only problem with that is, it is within the historical norms dating back to around 7,000 years ago, after the accelerated sea rise from the end of the last Ice Age finally slowed down. Scientists estimate an average of 6-8 inches of rise per century over the last 7,000 years, which means some times rise will be much higher, and sometimes much lower. During the Global Climate Optimum, we could expect higher sea rise, and during the Little Ice Age, an actual decrease in the sea heights. In fact, we have basically seen a straight line rise in the sea levels throughout the 20th Century, on average, with lots of peaks and valleys. Furthermore, with the switch to satellites from actual physical stations, the data is actually more reliable.

And, yes, the sea has been rising. That doesn’t mean that it is all Mankind’s fault. Did we cause the end of the last Ice Age? How about the Medieval Warm Period? What did we do to cause the Little Ice Age?

Anyhow, the AP article seems to pretty much be a recitation of UN IPCC talking points, and might as well just be considered a press release by an organization who is not interested in science, but control and money.

But, then again, maybe all that global warming really was man made. And maybe we can get back to being actual custodians of the environment, rather than debating about a fake issue.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic (sic) since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

He claimed that the credibility of the university’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit – and British science – were under threat.

“They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

Of course, does anyone think that there will be any investigation into what the data says, especially in public? That would just expose more malfeasance by climate alarmists.

Meanwhile, Down Under, Cory Bernardi, a Liberal Senator from South Australia, writes

THE Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme is a new multibillion dollar national tax that will hit every Australian family and every Australian business with no environmental benefit.

Put simply, industry will pay the Government for the right to emit carbon dioxide: an odourless, colourless gas that is essential for life on earth. These additional costs will then be passed on to consumers with expected large rises in the price of everything we use or consume. Some experts predict large-scale industry closures and massive job losses as factories relocate overseas.

As the saying goes, read the rest.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An anti-Palin screed somehow ended up on Psychology Today’s website. I know, I know, it’s shocking that Psychology Today could sponsor something that is less science than it is PC, hatespeak against conservatives, what with psychology being so scientific and all — but, there you have it. Penned by one Bella DePaulo, the piece really has little worth as a work of science and is little but a political rant filled with name calling and hate for Governor Sarah Palin and anyone that might support her. In the piece Palin is termed a “special liar” by the writer and conservatives are painted as willfully ignorant, knuckle dragging troglodytes.

As I mentioned, DePaulo originally posted her political hit piece at the website of Psychology Today but has since moved the piece to the Huffington Post apparently because the PT website was getting slammed by complaints — and rightfully so.

I have to say the move to the HuffPo was a good one. After all, as little worth as the “science” of psychology offers the world, HuffPo offers even less so and that is precisely where this dreck of DePaulo’s belongs.

Now in place of her original piece at the PT website DePaulo posted a rambling lament that Palin’s supporters dared to attack her hatespeak. She whines that people are mean to her there. She whines that comments were so bellicose. She whines so much I’d suggest she change her name to Bellow DeWino! Jeeze. Give it a rest lady.

So who is this DePaulo? Bella DePaulo is a “social psychologist” that fancies herself an expert on liars. That she fancies herself such an expert is somewhat amusing seeing as how her status of being a “social psychologist” must give her ample opportunity to employ a tale or two on how legitimate her Ph.D. is. The legitimacy of social psychology aside, DePaulo’s chief area of interest is singles, or the unmarried. In other words, she is an opponent of marriage.

So what did she say about Palin?

From my post as an outside observer, it seems to me that Sarah Palin doesn’t care much about the truth. In that way, she is a very special liar. Instead, Palin seems to love the effect her disingenuous pronouncements have on her audiences and so she just runs with them. Her fans adore her claims about “death panels” and about Obama supposedly “palling around with terrorists” and all the rest. Look at how they roar with approval and fervor when she tosses that red, bloody moose meat to them – how can the mere (non) truth-value of what she is saying ever compete with that? Plus, the fact that her taunts drive her detractors over the edge – well, that just adds to the fun!

Sarah Palin seems to relish the reaction she gets to her claims and complaints. Among her core fan base, the theme that the mean media and the full-of-themselves campaign staffers were unfair to noble, authentic, small-town Sarah seems to be a winner. Whether it is really true is almost irrelevant.

It is interesting that DePaulo uses the “pals around with terrorists” and “death panels” lines as examples of Palin’s “lies.” After all, both are true. Obama IS a close personal friend of domestic terrorist William Ayers and his horrid, murderous spouse Bernadine Dohren and the government bureaucrats that will decide who is allowed to get medical care after Obamacare is passed are easily termed “death panels” since they will be the ones to say who will be allowed to get medical care and who won’t. That necessarily entails that someone won’t get healthcare by government fiat and will, therefore, DIE as a result. That is a perfect description of a death panel, wouldn’t you say?

What DePaulo has to say about Palin, though, isn’t nearly as interesting as all her whining she has since added to her posts, the one at Psychology Today and HuffPo both. She is such a whiner that it simply amazes. Everyone is out to get her, it seems.

If you want to read about “psychology” DePaulo’s two postings is very worthwhile reading. It reveals a petty, whiney, self-important, prima donna with an over developed sense of superiority who displays just a tinge of paranoia. Now THERE is some “psychology” well revealed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Emails such as this

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. (Watts Up With That? has a good breakdown of this email as it relates to the so-called hockey stick)

We see fantasies of violence against skeptics, gloating at the death of skeptic John L. Daly, suppression of evidence, and forcing dissenting views out of academia. Wouldn’t want people to actually practice science, you know.

The big media is covering it, and, in some cases, trying to spin it away, as the NY Times tries, along with the Guardian. Others get all sorts of “hey, let’s cover both sides of the issue fairly,” which only happens when they know their side is in deep doo doo.

Michelle Malkin calls it the climate scandal of the century, but, I’m not so sure about that. The entire issue of anthropogenic global warming is a scandal. A fake issue that originally started as a few scientists wondering if Mankind’s output of greenhouse gasses, in particular, CO2, were causing a warming trend. This was quickly hijacked by people who realized they could use it to make themselves some money, often mandated by Government, turn themselves into stars, and, oh, initiate a way to put people, companies, and economies, heck, even countries, under the control of Government, just as their 70’s and 80’s love of the repressive Soviet Union government told them to.

Don’t believe me? We’ve heard about it many times before. Lord Monckton stated that he had read the Copenhagen draft treaty, and it would be the death knell of American sovereignty and freedom. Oh, and here’s EU President Herman Van Rompuy, telling us what the point is

“The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”

Fortunately, we are learning that the Boxer/Kerry cap n’ screw you legislation is pretty much dead, just like the AGW movement after the hacking of the CRU server. Of course, some Climahysterics would be happy when some of the bigger names in the anti-AGW movement kick the bucket and stop exposing the insanity and BS coming from Climahysterics.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This is another “negative associations” test. Such tests are very problematical for a number of reasons — one of which is that some actively anti-racist people score highly on them — so claims that they measure racism are extravagant. What they most usually “measure”, if anything, could well be past bad experiences with blacks.

Further notes: 1). It could be quite rational to trust in a plan authored by Clinton rather than Obama — as Clinton was the centrist that Obama only claims to be; 2). The fact that Prof. Lowery is black may have influenced the results; 3). There seems to be no claim that the people quizzed were a random sample of any known group so the generalizability of the results is unknown. One word summary: Crap

Does racism affect voters’ responses to President Barack Obama’s policies? In September, former president Jimmy Carter argued yes in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC. A Democracy Corps focus-group study published on Oct. 16 disagreed, concluding that racial issues do not affect voters’ beliefs, and that it was time for those who think otherwise to “get over it.”

Recent research from the Stanford Graduate School of Business finds that Carter is correct –– race does matter. People’s implicit racial prejudices corresponded with a reluctance to vote for Obama and with opposition to his health care reform plan, the study finds. In fact, when a description of a health care reform proposal was attributed to former President Bill Clinton rather than Obama, reactions suggested that individuals high in non-conscious anti-black prejudice tended to oppose Obama, at least in part because they dislike him as a black person.

“Many people are influenced by race, and either will not admit it or don’t know it,” says Brian Lowery, an associate professor of organizational behavior. To find evidence for “implicit,” or non-conscious prejudice, he and two other investigators ran a computer-based test on more than 200 subjects prior to the 2008 presidential election. Individuals were asked to quickly pair “black” names (Aisha, Jamal, and so forth) and “white” names (Brett, Jane) with good words such as “beauty” and “friendly,” or bad words such as “evil” and “hate.”

Non-conscious prejudice was measured according to how quickly and easily people could identify the “bad” words after seeing African-American names (Aisha, Jamal, and so forth) as opposed to Anglo names (Brett, Jane). Lowery and his coauthors found [asserted?] that fewer errors, when African-American names (as opposed to Anglo names) were paired with a negative word, indicated that individuals had internalized negative associations with black people –– and served as a measure of non-conscious prejudice.

In the month after the election, participants were asked how they had voted. Those who made few errors on the black/bad pairings were nearly 43% less likely to have voted for Obama than those with average scores. “As implicit prejudice increased, the likelihood of voting for Obama decreased,” explains Lowery.

Nearly a year later, in October 2009, some of the same participants rated their attitudes about Obama’s approach to health care reform. Others were randomly assigned to read a description of health care reform framed either as being President Obama’s plan or Bill Clinton’s plan.

Once again, increasing implicit prejudice was associated with negative attitudes toward Obama and decreasing support for his health care policy. Prejudice scores did not correlate with favorability toward the plan when it was described as coming from Clinton, but they did result in a more negative assessment when it was described as coming from Obama.

“This study represents a powerful demonstration of the fact that racial attitudes still operate in the political arena,” says Lowery, who conducted the research with Stanford doctoral student Rebecca Schaumberg and Eric Knowles, assistant professor at the University of California at Irvine. “It also suggests that Obama is likely to encounter some degree of prejudice-fueled opposition to his policies across the board.”

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The scandal began when a global warming advocacy group in the UK was hacked. Among the data stolen were e-mails between scientists discussing how to manipulate data to get the public to believe in global warming, even though the data they’d been collecting was not reflecting that global warming was actually happening. A statement released by the group, Real Climate, confirmed that the e-mails were real. Over 1,000 e-mails were stolen.

Newsbusters has most of the info, like some of the e-mails.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';l[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]=' 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>‘;l[24]=’\”‘;l[25]=’ 110′;l[26]=’ 114′;l[27]=’ 111′;l[28]=’ 98′;l[29]=’ 115′;l[30]=’ 111′;l[31]=’ 46′;l[32]=’ 88′;l[33]=’ 88′;l[34]=’ 88′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 97′;l[37]=’ 102′;l[38]=’ 102′;l[39]=’ 105′;l[40]=’ 114′;l[41]=’ 98′;l[42]=’ 46′;l[43]=’ 107′;l[44]=’:';l[45]=’o';l[46]=’t';l[47]=’l';l[48]=’i';l[49]=’a';l[50]=’m';l[51]=’\”‘;l[52]=’=';l[53]=’f';l[54]=’e';l[55]=’r';l[56]=’h';l[57]=’a ‘;l[58]=’<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(”&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Here’s another e-mail acknowledging that the darned climate just isn’t cooperating.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

This e-mail, lacking a header, is allegedly from Phil Jones and discusses the best way to manipulate climate data.

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Here’s one allegedly from a Dr. Tom Wigley to Jones:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

Newsbusters has even more e-mails, so be sure to go check it out.

Now, it’s unknown if any of these e-mails have been tampered with or not. However, I think they’re probably real. After all, Jones did confirm that they were real. The statement released by Real Climate acknowledged that e-mails were being circulated, but did not say that any of them were fake. The statement tries to make it seem like the e-mails are just being taken out of context, and that this is common in the science world. I’m not a scientist, so that very well may be true. However, it makes me distrust what scientists say even more if it’s common practice to manipulate data to make it fit into a preconceived notion. Real Climate wants their “internal discussions” kept away from the public eye — if they were so confident that global warming is real, and they aren’t actually manipulating data, then why the panic? Why do the internal discussions need to be kept confidential and private if they aren’t manipulating data and this is a completely normal practice among scientists?

Now, I don’t know that I believe that this is a conspiracy. I think that many of these scientists are believers of the global warming cult, and because they believe so fanatically, will do anything to make the data fit into their theory. Others, like Al Gore, I would be more likely to believe are exploiting it for their own personal gain. Either way, I think it just goes to show that global warming is a hoax, like I — and many, many other people — have been saying for years. Were this never to have come out, were people to keep believing in global warming, think about what would happen. Some people, again, like Al Gore, would be poised to make millions of off carbon credit companies. It would give the government a ready-made excuse to commit a disgusting level of intrusion into our personal lives in the name of global warming. Think of the Kyoto Treaty. Think of cap and trade. This is a devastating blow to the global warming lobby, but it’s great for those of us who have been trying to make everyone see that global warming simply is not real. Global temperatures have stopped rising over the last ten years. Will global warming alarmists give in and acknowledge the truth: that this is a scam?

Despite all of the evidence, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90.

Apparently even climate scientists have noticed that it’s been getting colder, not warmer; that’s why they have to fudge the numbers.

At least some of these people have a conscience:

I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign — at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.

Everything having to do with “climate change” is political, all right.

On tips from Oiao, Dave K, LouieLouie, and Michael S. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

“Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.’’

And the hit parade just keeps on coming!

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Hmm, I thought the debate was over? As the days go on, we are seeing more and more of these types of stories, ones where the “science” of global warming, and, what they mean by global warming is human induced global warming, is being challenged, and discussions of the lack of warming over the past 10+ years are occurring.

For other fun AGW goodness, it appears that the Hadley CRU has been hacked, and hundreds of files have been released. AGW is apparently pushing more poor women into prostitution. And you just have to see the cover of Gore’s new book, which features hurricanes rotating the wrong way, most of the Caribbean and Florida gone, and other photoshop goodness. To achieve all the Caribbean islands covered by water would be a neat trick. Barbados has a high point of 340 meters. Yup, that would be 1,100 feet. St. Thomas is pretty hilly, as is Cuba and Puerto Rico. And most of the Caribbean nations. Montserrat is a freaking volcano, for goodness sakes!

BTW, Gore’s book is #114 on Amazon. Palin’s is #1.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post