Editorial: Cooling Earth is inconvenient fact

From the Examiner:
WASHINGTON (Map, News) – It’s been unusually chilly in Anchorage this summer. In fact, temperatures in the Alaskan city have reached 70 degrees only twice this year, compared with 49 times in 2004. A National Weather Service meteorologist predicted that 2008 will likely go down “as the summer with the least number of 65-degree days” on record.
But just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came to the “unequivocal” conclusion that the Earth is on a dangerous warming trend that, in Al Gore’s words, puts “the survival of the United States of America as we know it … at risk.” Looks like somebody forgot to send Mother Nature the memo.
Last week, the scientist who wrote the computer model that monitors Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol cast serious doubts on whether the Earth is getting warmer at all. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, so he’s no ordinary global warming “denier.” But Evans now says the scientific evidence compiled since 1999 has convinced him that he — and what he calls other global warming “alarmists” — were wrong. (more)

Gore forecasts ice cap meltdown within years

From WND:
Arrives at meeting in motorcade, suggests attendees ride bicycles
A complete meltdown of the North Pole ice cap resulting in environmental catastrophes for Greenland and other northern nations, generating a flood of “climate refugees.” The latest horror flick storyline? No. Al Gore’s latest forecast.
Gore has declared that because of the potentially horrifying consequences, he wants the U.S. to move to entirely renewable sources of electricity within 10 years.
“[It's] fantastic that he set the goal he did,” said Alan Cohen of the Baltimore Climate Action Network, an offshoot of Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “I also wish Gore were running for president, but that’s another issue. (more)
yeah, vote for him for president ’cause he makes a lousy scientist. Check those polar icecaps here
or in the following posts..

Gore Spews Out More Hot Air: Predicts Polare Ice Caps Will Melt Within a Few Years

From doctorbulldog:
Uhm… I hate to be the one to burst Al Gore’s “ManBearPig” (MBP – aka Mass Balance Potential) glacial recession bubble, but I just checked the polar ice cap data from yesterday and it seems to me that the ice cap has actually increased from just a year ago: (more here)
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Gore. Don’t you just hate those pesky facts..

Psychiatrists Now Report First Case of "Climate Change Delusion" in Oceania

Guilt-stricken and terrified of quenching thirst and contributing to the doom of man-made global warming
By Peter J. SmithSYDNEY, July 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand have diagnosed what they call their first case of “climate change delusion” in a 17-year-old boy, who was too guilt-stricken over his part in man-made global warming to drink water. Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt first reported the find from the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 42, Issue 4, April 2008, which Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of Royal Children’s Hospital describe as a “previously unreported phenomenon.” (more)

The Lawnmower Men

The carbon police are coming, from the WSJ:
Al Gore blew into Washington on Thursday, warning that “our very way of life” is imperiled if the U.S. doesn’t end “the carbon age” within 10 years. No one seriously believes such a goal is even remotely plausible. But if you want to know what he and his acolytes think this means in practice, the Environmental Protection Agency has just published the instruction manual. Get ready for the lawnmower inspector near you.(more)

American Physical Society Opens Debate on Global Warming

From NewsBusters…Of course, it was always up for debate, it’s just that some people had forgotten what science is all about…
A rather shocking event happened Wednesday: the American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, opened for debate “the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”…
From the APS…There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. (more)

Yellow Science

Great article over at First Things:
…Nevertheless, over the last several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of “an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure.” Global warming may or may not be “the greatest scam in history,” as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an “item of physical knowledge.” (more)

THE BUBBLE POPS-’WARMING’ HYSTERIA FIZZLES

From the NY Post:
June 20, 2008 — RARELY has so much hectoring produced so little.
After all the magazine covers, celebrity sermonizing and UN-certified-expert hand-wringing, the fight against global warming got a real-world test in the US Senate a few weeks ago in the debate over a proposal to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system.
After a small dose of the argument, the proposal’s backers couldn’t wait to drop it. It was leading opponent Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, who declared he’d be happy to talk about cap-and-trade for a month. …

…Finally, there’s the global-cooling spell. The world hasn’t been warming since 1998, and an article in the journal Nature says warming won’t pick up again until 2015. Since global warming is a long-term trend, a decade-long or more stall in temperatures doesn’t mean much – except that environmentalists have banked so much politically on whipping up hysteria based on imminent catastrophe.
The stall in temperatures shows how little we know about global warming. It means that the .3 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures predicted during the next decade by the UN’s much-vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen. (for the other two reasons click here)

Scientist: ‘Global warming’ scheme to push global tax

Ah. The real reason behind the global warming talk. $$ This explains why Gore still lives in his energy gussler. From WorldNet:
Blames U.N. for using scare reports,’mob rule,’ to bully through agenda
A scientist whose reservations about “global warming” have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using “mob rule” to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes. (more)

About That Global Warming Bill….

Nice analysis from the Heritage foundation over at FrontPage:
On June 2, the United States Senate will begin debate on America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The Lieberman-Warner bill (LW) would restrict energy use to combat global warming. Like global warming itself, the bill has been the subject of considerable hype and little hard-nosed analysis. For this reason, there are several myths about it that need to be dispelled.
Myth #1: LW would not be expensive.
Fact: Simply put, LW works like a massive energy tax. By restricting carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas–with a freeze at 2005 levels beginning in 2012, to a 70 percent reduction in 2050–the bill forces down supply and thus boosts the price of energy. In fact, if energy prices did not go up, then the targets in the bill would not be met. As energy is the economy’s lifeblood, and 85 percent of it comes from these fossil fuels, the impact will be substantial. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030, according to an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, Charles River Associates, and the National Association of Manufacturers have all conducted studies predicting significant economic burdens on consumers should the bill be enacted. (more here)