There is a great article in the Wall Street Journal, which I found via my subscription to Babalu Blog (if you haven’t subscribed, add this link to your reader). It seems there has been a change of opinion in the world concerning the Kyoto Protocol.

It seems that President Bush’s plan works better:

The headline was that the nations pledged to cut global greenhouse emissions by half by 2050. Yet for the first time, the G-8 also agreed that any meaningful climate program would have to involve industrializing nations like China and India. For the first time, too, the G-8 agreed that real progress will depend on technological advancements. And it agreed that the putative benefits had to justify any brakes on economic growth.

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto Protocol — and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

So despite environmentalist sanctimony about the urgent need for President Bush and the U.S. to “take the lead” on global warming, his program has done better than most everybody else’s.

The article also shows what I have been saying since the blog was started: Kyoto is not only a failure, it is socialism:

The irony is that Kyoto has handed them every reason not to participate. Europe knew all along that it couldn’t meet its quotas, so it created an out in “offsets.” A British factory, say, buys a credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers. This is a tax on the Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive. Sweet deal if you can get it.

It gets worse. The offsets are routed through a U.N. bureaucracy that makes them far more valuable in Europe than the cost of the actual efficiency improvements. So far, Kyoto-world has paid more than €4.7 billion to eliminate an obscure greenhouse gas called HFC-23; the necessary incinerators cost less than €100 million. Most of the difference in such schemes goes to the foreign government, such as China’s communist regime.

Go ahead and hold your breath waiting to hear this news on the evening news, or read about it in the newspapers.

Well, for one thing, it hasn’t warmed since 1998, and another thing, there are these laws they can’t break:

According to the laws of thermodynamics, the mid to upper levels of the troposphere should be warming faster then the surface. This is because this is where the CO2 is supposed to be trapped. Co2 absorbs more heat then it reflects. Since it retains its heat, the area in which it is “trapped” has to be warming faster then an area where it is not “trapped.”

This has not happened. According to the data available from NOAA (The National Weather Service) the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere have not seen a dramatic warming.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/equator.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/nhem.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/graphics/shem.gif

Please notice the areas that would be considered mid to upper levels of the troposphere, 850 – 100 mb. The temperatures have not increased in a manner consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and AGW theory.

If you look at the data available from MSU, you can clearly see that in the Northern Hemisphere, troposphere temperatures have fallen since 1979.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

This is the exact opposite of what should be happening.

The author goes on to discuss the ability of carbon dioxide to absorb heat to infinity. Just another piece of science to be dismissed and ignored by John McCain.

Eleven years ago, the earth stopped warming. Ever hear that on the news? Neither have I. But the Church of Global Warming isn’t about to let a silly thing like facts get in the way of controlling the world:

In his speech to Congress today, [James Hansen] is expected to target big corporations and members of US Congress who had a poor record of dealing with climate change.

“When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime,” he said in an interview with the Guardian.

He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming that he is certain that amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already above safe levels and will call for the new US president to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations.

(Source.)

During an energy crunch, he wants to stop the creation of energy plants, because they add a trace amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I wonder if anyone listening to him will ask him about the new carbon filter that removes 90% of CO₂ from smokestack emissions. I hope at least one of our nation’s legislators has been briefed on this development. Apparently, it has yet to reach NASA.

As for that safe level of CO₂, Hansen says that is at 350 ppm, the level reached in 1988. Currently, the concentration of CO₂ sits at 385 ppm, with no increase in temperatures in the last 11 years. In fact, parts of America were reached record low temperatures and were receiving snow as late as June.

Yes, it is the oil companies who should be prosecuted for propaganda.

From Watts Up With That:

Using the May data, I now get no temperature change for the last 11 years for HadCrut3, RSS, and UAH.

Even with the warm spike 1998 El Nino year included, the flatness of the 3 metrics used to track global temperature is telling especially when compared to the Keeling CO2 curve for the same 11 year period

He has pretty graphs and stuff. Check it out here.

Hat Tip: Space Guy

While flying around the world in his private jet, telling us all how we should curb our energy usage, Al Gore’s house in Nashville has increased its energy usage by 10%. And it was already extremely high:

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But, but, but he buys carbon credits, so he can use as much energy as he wants! At least that is what the disciples will tell you. See, if you can afford to pay for your indulgences, you can waste as much energy as you want. Now, those poor people who can’t afford to buy carbon credits, well, you just have to suffer.

But not the Goracle. He takes the millions he makes shilling for Big Green and lives like he wants, all the while pumping more propaganda out of the Church of Global Warming.™ If this clown really believed what he was telling us, that the climate was really in danger of heating up to the point that life was in danger, wouldn’t he set the example for other to follow? How many liberals out there rail against the Catholic priests that molest children, siting the clear hypocrisy, yet defend the Goracle and his behavior?

Like Glenn Reynolds said, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”

First things first.

I would love to take credit for collecting all of these videos, but I can’t. The credit goes to a Free Republic user named Entrepreneur. Earlier this year, the first part of several posts were made that listed video after video that the Church of Global Warming would love to confiscate and burn, along with the creators.

It was a great series of posts, and a great resource for heretics. But I thought it would be better to have the videos on one page, rather than a set of links. So, I thought about making some pages for the site with the videos on them. While I could do that, it would be easier to create a series of posts, embed the videos in them and link them up in the Archives.

So here we are. (more…)

The Australian Broadcasting Company has a question for children: When should you die to save the planet?

They have made a cute little game with pigs to show the kids how much of a “greenhouse pig” they are, and at what age they should have died. I took the test. It told me I should have died when I was 3.6 years old.

Moonbattery writes:

The site accomplishes two tasks at once, instilling antihuman environmentalist propaganda, while at the same time establishing that authorities are in a position to determine how long you should live.

This is what moonbats present to children online, where their parents can see it. Imagine what they’re teaching kids at school.

Here are two screenshots I took from the site:

Note what the paper on the sign says: “find out when you should die.”

Read that last paragraph a couple times, and then ask yourself what they are trying to get the kids to do. Are they really trying to get them to recycle, or compost, or drive a smaller car? It seems they are trying to convince them that they are the problem and that the world would be better off if they were dead.

Imagine the guilt a young kid is going to feel if they have been indoctrinated in this mindset. This is disgusting, but it is a surprising look behind the curtain.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Vaclav Klaus hits the nail on the head. Global warming alarmism isn’t about saving the world from roasting, but about putting the world under the thumb of a few elites who know what is best for us, and the world:

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the “climate alarmism” perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

“Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,” he said.

“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet,” he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

“It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda,” he said.

He has called out Al Gore to a debate, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Looks like a great book though.

This sounds like a big success. If this is as good as the research shows, we may be done listening to these global warming knuckleheads preach about how we are all going to die. Yeah, I was joking. They’ll never shut up, but just find another crisis to warn us about.

Anyway:

Researchers in Wyoming report development of a low-cost carbon filter that can remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide gas from the smokestacks of electric power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels.

Maciej Radosz and colleagues at Wyoming’s Soft Materials Laboratory cite the pressing need for simple, inexpensive new technologies to remove carbon dioxide from smokestack gases. Coal-burning electric power plants are major sources of the greenhouse gas, and control measures may be required in the future.

The free market to the rescue, once again. And if removing the CO2 from the air wasn’t enough, it has a bonus attached to it. Via Free Republic:

The short answer to “where does the CO2 go” — you have to PUT it somewhere (think geological formation), but if you do it right, it’s a twofer! You can use it for enhanced oil and gas recovery techniques. From the paper:

“Although a typical destination of the captured CO2 is commonly envisioned to be some form of passive geologic storage or other storage type, this work is also motivated by a vision of utilizing the captured CO2 to displace valuable oil and coal-bed methane stranded in mature reservoirs, as illustrated in Figure 1, before storing it permanently in spent reservoirs. Such a CO2-driven displacement is referred to as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced coal-bed methane recovery (ECBMR).”

So not only does it remove 90% of carbon dioxide emissions from smokestacks, but it can be used to get more oil. Very nice.

If you think this will be enough for the Church of Global Warming, think again. Another Freeper adds:

You’d see the AGW people shouting with delight,

IF

reducing CO2 were actually their goal.

Reducing our lifestyle is the actual goal, so don’t expect them to be too excited about a smokestack scrubber that allows the power plant output to remain the same or greater with reduced CO2.

Watch them and remember.

Exactly. The global warming crisis isn’t about us warming the global, but creating “a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.” This will either not be enough, or another threat will present itself.

That’s how many scientists have signed a petition decrying the idea that man is causing global warming by burning fossil fuel:

Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who’s who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, “much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you’d ordinarily expect,” he explained. He’s processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go — most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.

Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?

“I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming,” he says, “and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren’t alone.”

At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn’t be done by poll, he explains. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.”

John McCain’s bold, ‘market-based” solution to global warming amounts to nothing more than a tax on energy. The Heritage Foundation released a study on the effects a similar plan proposed by Senators Liebermand and Warner. That plan proposes to cut CO₂ emissions by 70% by mid century. The expected results? Typical:

Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly, even given the most generous assumptions. To put a firm floor under the cost estimates, we assume that all of the problems of meeting currently enacted federal, state, and local legislation are overcome. A further unlikely condition is added; namely, that a critical but unproven technology–carbon capture and sequestration–will be ready for full-scale commer­cial use in just 10 years.[1] Making a more reasonable assumption about just this one technology leads to dramatically higher (but by no means worst-case) costs.[2] We use these two cases to bracket our cost projections of S. 2191:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
  The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).[3]
• The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in infla­tion-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.

Our analysis does not extend beyond 2030, at which point S. 2191 mandates GHG reductions to 33 percent below the 2005 level. However, it should be noted that the mandated GHG reductions con­tinue to become more severe and must be 70 per­cent below the 2005 level by 2050.

McCain’s plan is not much different than this one, and considering he also co-sponsored global warming legislation with Lieberman, one would think he would sign this bill if president. One of the biggest issues with the plan is the fact that the technology needed simply doesn’t exist.

Writing in Townhall, Robert Bluey quotes details the flaws in McCain’s plan:

McCain cites the success of the 1990 sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system as evidence that his plan would work. “The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options,” McCain said. However, there are important distinctions between combating acid rain though cap and trade vs. carbon dioxide.

When the acid rain cap-and-trade system was added to the Clean Air Act, the technology to reduce sulfur dioxide was already in commercial use.

There’s nothing comparable for carbon dioxide. The method, known as carbon capture and sequestration, is still in development. Carbon storage, as it’s also called, “requires capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities, transporting it to suitable locations, injecting it into deep underground geological formations, and monitoring its behavior,” according to the World Resources Institute.

There’s no clear evidence that carbon capture and sequestration will be ready for full-scale commercial use 10 years from now. Without this technology, the goals outlined by McCain and those included in the Lieberman-Warner bill cannot be accomplished.

Seeing this, McCain’s response is to turn to the government:

“For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity,” McCain said in Portland, Ore., drawing a sharp distinction from the conservative philosophy of former President Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Is there any wonder McCain is being rejected by the conservative base? Is there any wonder Republicans are losing seats they have held for decades? It is the rejection of traditional conservative values that is driving this, and will result is a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat Congress with enough votes to stifle any opposition and liberal appointments to the Supreme Court.

I don’t mean to sound the Doomsday signal, but the more the Republicans embrace the left, the less there is to be optimistic about. Is there anyone in Congress right now that will lead the new Republican Revolution? Is there anyone out there who is more concerned with doing what is right, instead of getting re-elected?

If there is, they are quiet.

The GOP website is now featuring a presentation on how John McCain’s cap and trade program will not only encourage businesses to go green, but will actually increase jobs in America. This latest insult, in a long line of insults from John McCain, is unforgivable.

First, how is this market based when it is initiated by the government? Maybe I am missing something here, but market based solutions are usually initiated by a need in the market, not on a government plan. If there is a “market” for green energy, the government doesn’t need to be involved.

But with this plan, the government sets the level of CO₂ you can emit. If you don’t use green energy, you have to pay those who do. That isn’t a market solution. It may take place in the market, after the government sets limits. From How Stuff Works:

Cap-and-trade schemes are the most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions. The scheme’s governing body begins by setting a cap on allowable emissions. It then distributes or auctions off emissions allowances that total the cap. Member firms that do not have enough allowances to cover their emissions must either make reductions or buy another firm’s spare credits. Members with extra allowances can sell them or bank them for future use.

Who is the governing body here? The government. John McCain. A Democrat Congress.

In reality, it’s government punishing companies for not meeting government standards. But I guess since the GOP says it is market based, we are all expected to nod our heads and march ahead like little green drones.

Second, how in the world does punishing industries and businesses in America lead to new jobs? First, these businees have to buy carbon credits. Then, if they don’t like the expense of carbon credits, they buy green energy. Green energy costs more than other energy, as any liberal will tell you.

It’s true that renewable energy costs can be many times higher than power from traditional sources. For solar, utilities might have to shell out 10 to 20 times more money per kilowatt-hour compared with the cost of power from existing dams. The price of building wind turbines and coal plants is roughly comparable, though some estimates put wind higher.

It’s how Al Gore justified his high energy bill.

Finally, are we expected to ignore the repercussions carbon trading is having in Europe?

Rather than proving its effectiveness, the trading system has pushed electricity prices even higher while energy-intensive companies are forced to close down, cut jobs, or pass on the costs to consumers.

…

Europe is burdening its industries and consumers with soaring costs that are undermining Europe’s international competitiveness. Instead of improving environmental conditions, Europe’s policy threatens to redirect energy-intensive production to parts of the world that reject mandatory carbon cuts.

Yet the GOP presentation wants you and me to believe that this plan will bring nothing but good things to America.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to support John McCain and the Republican party. He continues to embrace liberal ideas and insult the conservative base of the GOP. Now, party officials are joining him.

In order to save the planet, some folks recycle, some take the bus. Others may buy organic in order to limit the use of chemicals.

Then, there are those that call for the extiction of the human race:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT, consists of volunteers who have made active life decisions to remain childless for the benefit of the Earth, thereby preventing the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals.

While no one person takes credit for being the founder, Les U. Knight created its name and is the spokesperson for the movement.

“We’ve already exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity for humans by quite a bit,” Knight told WND. “We are using up our resources. The best way to stop it is by not breeding. It’s really the best way because the people we don’t create don’t exist, and so there’s no impact on them.”

How does he know “We’ve already exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity for humans by quite a bit?” Is there an owner’s manual? The lack of food in the world isn’t because there are too many people, but because there is too much government. I heard all this before somewhere. Oh yeah, The Population Bomb.

We were supposed to have millions starving to death in the 70s and 80s because there were just so many of us. Author Paul R. Ehrlich actually advocated “starving whole countries that refused to implement population control measures.” At least these guys are helping the planet by limiting the number of reproducing liberal knuckleheads.

I do agree we are overpopulated with them.

The Telegraph has it right. Disciples of the Chuch of Global Warming™ are “so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.” They will fit reality into their belief system, one way or another.

If you want the truth about the Chuch of Global Warming™, you have to go to the Internet. Where else could you find out about this:

While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the NOAA’s claim that “average global land temperature” in March was “the warmest on record”, this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre.

Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

Did you see any of that on CNN or CBS? I know I didn’t. You didn’t see this on the television news either:

On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a “tipping point” where “irreversible change” takes place. This was based on last September’s data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

Finally, I don’t recall reading or hearing anything about this in the main stream media:

The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.

Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century - warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 - and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.

It’s a shame that most people are not getting this information. There is already doubt about the religion, and this type of information could help in countering the propaganda spit out by Al Gore and Co.

If you have yet to read our coverage of the CoGW, you have quite a bit of catching up to do. Start with “10 Reasons to Doubt Global Warming is Man-Made (Part 1).” It is by far our most popular article. Then click here and fire at will.

In the spirit of Josef Goebbels, who made the comment used for this post’s title, Al Gore talked to students at Ohio State University for free. He made his usual comments, such as, “The planet has a fever.” But he didn’t have the usual slide show or any clips from “An Inconvenient Truth.” He just talked, and according to one student, there wasn’t much he hadn’t heard before:

“He’s not saying anything new. He’s just collecting everything and presenting it in a forceful manner. He just makes the point very convincingly,” said Christian Schnell, a graduate student from Germany who is studying math.

A polar bear ambassador made a plea for the poor bears, saying, “We lost 1 million square miles of ice last summer alone, and if you don’t have ice, you don’t have polar bears.”

Pardon me for interrupting your fear mongering and your appeals to pity, but I have some facts to interject from Watts Up With That:

In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the arctic sea ice melting. Additionally, there were predictions that it would not recover to its previous levels.

But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007.

The ice melts every summer. Polar bears are not dying off, but growing in numbers. In areas suffering a decrease in bear population, research shows hunting is the cause, not global warming.

Polar bears are a prop used to appeal to people emotions.

Gore also said:

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the price of oil is going up and coal is dirty. The climate crisis is, in my opinion, the single biggest challenge the human species has ever confronted.”

I don’t know if you noticed, but Al Gore is making money hand over fist, and has even incorporated a sales pitch into his presentation now. And let’s not forget his association with Maurice Strong.

The scary part about all this isn’t the idea of global warming killing everyone. It’s the fact that all three presidential candidates are disciples of the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming.