|
By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Dec 10 2008, 10:29 AM
There is a lot at stake for former Vice President Al Gore with the Global Warming* issue. Without the threat of Global Warming, he is rather out of a job. Who would hire Al Gore to come speak about the threat of normal weather? Without Global Warming, who would ever buy a carbon credit from the corporation he is affiliated with? Without Global Warming, Al Gore just becomes another washed up Vice President who did not make it to the ultimate status prize of the presidency. I can understand why Al Gore keeps insisting that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet. All of Al Gore's current prestige and status and livelihood are tied to this fabricated crisis. President elect Barack Obama's buy-in is more difficult to understand, but buy-in he did. Obama meets Gore, urges urgent action on global warming: (My emphasis throughout)
U.S. President-elect
Barack Obama on Tuesday reiterated the need to address global warming
as he discussed the problem with former Vice President Al Gore. Flanked
by Gore and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Obama told reporters in
Chicago, ‘‘All three of us, I think, are in agreement that the time for
delay is over, the time for denial is over.’’
‘‘We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years
now: that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has
to be dealt within a serious way,’’ he said. ‘‘That’s what I intend my
administration to do.’’
Obama met with Gore ‘‘to listen and learn from Vice President Al Gore
on the extraordinary work that he has done around the issue of climate
change,’’ for which the former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2007. Obama is still bent on his environmentally friendly energy program, his green jobs plan--even though they won't solve our energy problems or help our economy.
When people realize what his energy plan will cost, both in Cap and Trade costs and increased utility costs, they might HOPE things will CHANGE back to cheaper un-green energy. From geophysicist David Deming: "Let the politicians take note. People will not like what you have in
mind. California is arguably the most liberal state. Yet last month
they defeated, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, a law that would have forced
California utilities to obtain half their electric power from renewable
sources. What the Obama administration proposes is much more radical.
Their cap-and-trade proposal will dramatically increase the energy
costs of the average consumer and likely drive our crippled economy
into a severe depression.
Why a president, facing the economic crisis our country seems to be headed toward, would embrace such expensive, inefficient green energy and crippling cap and trade proposals is beyond me. It is beyond geophysicist Deming too, who stated in his commentary, Global warming freeze: This is an absurd spectacle. Our advanced civilization is being
systematically mismanaged by technologically illiterate lawyers
responding to political pressures from irrational fanatics. Would
someone please tell these people it is impossible to overturn the laws
of thermodynamics? We cannot improve our economy by artificially forcing people to use expensive, unreliable and inefficient energy sources.
As Deming concludes, "To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over." Now we just have to get the politicians to look at the facts, because I cannot afford to pay triple WE energies bill charges!
*The term Global Warming is morphing into the term Climate Change because world temperatures have not cooperated over the past 10 years. Many examples cited in Global warming freeze? point out that current data shows warming "is now officially over."
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Monday, Nov 17 2008, 11:03 AM
Do you ever get the feeling that those who believe in Global Warming don't want to be confused by the facts? I fully support a person's right to believe what they please. That doesn't mean their beliefs are correct, but they do have the right to believe what they want. We call that free will. But when their beliefs start infringing on my rights, limit my choices, raise food and energy prices, and cripple our economy, then I draw the line. Yet that is exactly what is happening in our government and President Elect Obama is marching lock step to the global warming drummer. If you were paying attention, October was a chilly month around the world. Yet the Global Warming devotees stated otherwise. The UK Telegraph gave a startling explanation in The world has never seen such freezing heat: (My emphasis)
A
surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about
the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global
warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),
which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and
is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures,
announced that last month was the hottest October on record.This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and
plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to
China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency
reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local
snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and
ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. How do you explain that discrepancy? GISS says last October was "the hottest October on record", yet NOAA reported 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest temps, and we observe much the same. Plus, aren't scientists supposed to observe and question? If the data says one thing, but world wide weather reports of early snows show something else, wouldn't that make you look closer at the data? Thankfully, some did.
... when expert readers of the two leading
warming-skeptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit,
began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing
discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of
temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October
readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been
carried over and repeated two months running.
The
error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run
by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian
computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious
"hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This
only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered
temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot"
in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic
sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it
was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
The
GISS admitted that some data was "obtained from another body" and they didn't "have resources to exercise proper quality control" over that data! Amazing. The GISS figures are used by the UN "to promote its case for global warming." They use GISS because "they consistently show higher
temperatures than the others."
Yet last week's latest
episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been
called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre
to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show
that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he
had claimed, but the 1930s.
More and more data shows that brief period of warming in the 1990s has ended, yet Al Gore, the media, and some in government stubbornly hold to their religion of Global Warming.
[Is it] wise for the world's governments to
embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to
remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which
should give us all pause for thought. Candidate Obama said he would look at off shore drilling and clean coal. President Elect Obama retreats to his earlier positions of bankrupting our coal fired power plants through Cap and Trade and reinstating the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. These two measures will further cripple an ailing US economy. And why? Because of a stubborn belief in the bad science of Global Warming. What would Cap and Trade mean to us? America's Climate Security act "Catastrophic for Wisconsin" and Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-Raid!
Across the pond, they have the same problem, Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading:
Declining global temperatures continue to make a
mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global
warming scare is based.
As I have asked before, has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality?
Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria': A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an
alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only
hurting the poor. IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by,
Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
9/11 did for George W Bush.
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Nov 12 2008, 04:56 PM
A picture is worth a 1,000 words. Click this National Climatic Data Center/ NOAA link to see a map United States. It shows U.S. temperature averages from January through October of this year. The cruel joke is, now that temperatures are colder again, energy prices* are higher because of environmental protection measures! Another cruel joke: "State $5 billion in the red -- Governor to go to Beverly Hills"** by Rep. Jim Ott: On the same day Governor Doyle announced that Wisconsin has a budget
deficit in excess of $5 billion, the largest in state history, and
talked about spending cuts, tax hikes and job cuts, he announced that
he is flying to California next week for a summit on Global Warming.
The summit will be held at the Beverly Hills Hilton. ...
“Wisconsinites are facing the worst fiscal crisis in the state’s
history and Governor Doyle is flying to Beverly Hills, CA “…to develop
creative, collective actions to advance the global climate
agreement….”that hasn’t even been negotiated yet???” asked
Representative Jim Ott.
Rep. Ott added this point, “Furthermore how does firing up your state plane – you don’t exactly
have a history of flying commercial - reduce your carbon foot print?
The least you could do is fly Midwest Express, support a Wisconsin
company, and use some of the airline miles you must have accumulated on
your September global warming trip to Germany.”
Remember that Representative Jim Ott is also a Meteorologist--he knows his weather statistics! Colder temperatures? State $5 billion in the hole? No matter, Gov. Doyle has his priorities. Too bad they aren't mine. *We can't drill for new oil or natural gas sources, we can't build coal fired electricity plants, we can't build nuclear power plants, and we are forced to use expensive solar and wind, all because of environmental extremists. **I heard this on Mark Belling's show today. Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Thursday, Oct 30 2008, 09:36 AM
The world must not have gotten Al Gore's memo that the earth is warming. Yesterday Record cold swept over the region Wednesday in Ocala, Florida. (My emphasis throughout)
Twice the temperature dipped to freezing at the Ocala International
Airport early Wednesday before it began making a gradual climb to the
mid-60s. Though there was a reading of freezing or below throughout northwest
Marion County, Wednesday morning's official low temperature was 33
degrees. It was a record for Oct. 29 and the second lowest
temperature ever recorded in October since 1850...
...In almost every area of the county at daybreak Wednesday, frost - which came six weeks early - glistened on grass and rooftops.
On the other side of the pond, the Gore Effect has gone into full swing even without Mr. Gore's presence. Just discussing Global Warming legislation prompted the earliest snowfall in 86 years: Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate, How Parliament passed the Climate Bill:
Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday -
the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of
Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time,
in a marathon six hour session.
In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global
temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its
carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving
a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic
scrutiny and consent. The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring
and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute...
Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity
of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is
both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly
doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now
doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than
not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".
Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.
No need to worry about American jobs being outsourced to the UK after that bill! Will our congress follow suit? Blindly following Al Gore, our Pied Piper of Global Warming, marching down the road through early freezes and snow storms to Carbon Capping economic ruin? Guess it depends on who is in charge: The Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid or McCain balancing that Democrat controlled Congress?
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Saturday, Oct 25 2008, 04:13 PM
I found this interesting blog, The Reference Frame, on the Drudge Report. It's
written by Lobos Motl, a Czech physicist.
Seems Al Gore is having a tougher time speaking out about the dangers of Global
Warming. Frequently, unusually cold weather accompanies him on his speaking
engagements. This must happen fairly often because there is even a term for it,
The Gore effect:
The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail,
or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming. Hence, the
Gore Effect.
Well, Al Gore spoke at Harvard yesterday. Guess what? The temperature
plummeted. (My emphasis) Gore effect arrives to Harvard University:
It seems to be working again: see Weather
Underground (no, it is not the leftist militant group that may have
inspired Barack Obama: the name of the weather service is just a good joke).
In Cambridge,
the warmest October 22nd occurred in 1979 when the temperature climbed to 83
°F. Well, it doesn't look like what they see today. Even the average high
temperature for this day is 60 °F which is still far too high. After the
noon, the temperature in Cambridge
is 44.5 °F. Tonight, it is predicted to drop to 34 °F, close to the record
low of 28 °F measured in 1940.
For tomorrow night, the temperature in Cambridge
is forecast to drop below the freezing point to 28 °F which, if true, will beat
the record low temperature set in 1883, which means exactly 125 years ago...
Does the reality of colder temperatures have any effect on Harvard's
sustainability goals or Gore's message? No. Here is the email from the Office
of Harvard's President:
Although today's weather will hardly remind us of the serious problem that
is global warming, today's event - the Harvard Sustainability Celebration, with
a keynote address by former Vice President Al Gore - will go on...
Starting at 3 p.m., we will be serving hot cider and soup to keep
everyone warm; please dress for our changeable New England
weather. Henry Longfellow, onetime Harvard professor and longtime
Cantabrigian, once remarked, "The best thing one can do when it's raining
is to let it rain." We sincerely hope that, this afternoon, it won't rain.
But even if it does, Harvard celebrates Sustainability with spirits undampened.
I loved the physicist's observation about that email:
Cute! The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain but
the best thing one can do when it's warming by 0.6 °C per century is to fight
the climate, to redesign the Harvard logo, to unravel the modern
industrial civilization (if you allow me to exaggerate just a little bit), and
to serve people hot soup and cider so that they won't freeze during the
celebration of their heroic fight against warming. ;-)
I know the term Global Warming is morphing to Climate Change,
just because one just cannot depend on the weather to cooperate when scaring
people into believing we need to drastically cut CO2 emissions. Al Gore's
credibility and livelihood rests on selling the idea of reducing CO2 and selling carbon credits.
Wednesday, our high temperature was supposed to be 53 degrees. When you
compare that to the average
October temps chart for our zip code, we are 6 degrees below average
for the 22nd. I heard the word "snow flurries" in the Sunday weather forecast. Take a look at that chart--especially at the years we hit record
highs: 18 of the 31 record highs were set before 1970, 4 highs were set in the
1990s, and 2 in 2003. Pretty unusual for a planet that is heating as much as
ours supposedly is.
No doubt about it; we did have a warming phase. (I will never forget the summer of 1995. Temps were often above 100 and we had no air conditioning!) But that trend to warmer
temperatures seems to be heading back down. Those who are invested in Green
ideology and technology, like Al Gore, will not let it go easily...whether or
not, weather permitting.
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin, Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Sep 3 2008, 12:43 PM
Have you noticed that this summer was cooler than usual? That fact, coupled with our recent cold and snowy winter, takes the subject of Global Warming off the front burner.
The last time the temperature didn't hit 90 degrees in Milwaukee
during a summer* was in 2000, the weather service said. Before that, it
was 1915.
But without even knowing what the daily highs were, could you tell our days and nights were cooler when compared to other summers? I could. Thanks to lower evening temperatures, we were able to avoid turning on our electricity guzzling air conditioner this summer.
As a gardener, I know this summer has been cooler. Tomatoes, which require warm evening temperatures, are ripening slowly. This spring my peach trees let me know we had a colder than usual winter by producing only 2 blossoms. Essentially all of the flowering buds were frozen out. I haven't had a bumper crop in years. We may have had a stretch of warmer than usual temperatures in recent years. These fueled the Global Warming argument. Who could forget the summer of 1995? (We were remodeling. The whole east side of our house was open to the elements and mosquitoes. Couldn't run the air.) Remember that summer? We had a number of 100+ days! It was awful.
But the warming trend seems to have turned around, and I think it is taking the wind out of the Global Warming alarmists' sails. Did you notice how the Global Warming/Climate Change issue was no longer in the limelight at the Democrat convention? There was lots of talk about energy independence and getting off of foreign oil from the Democrats, but not much on reducing carbon footprints, or Global Warming specifically, that I heard. Barack Obama did not mention Global Warming or even Climate Change in his speech. The closest Obama came
to it was, (my emphasis)
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our
planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will
finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East...
...As
President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal
technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power**... ...And I'll invest 150 billion
dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy
- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an
investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs
that pay well and can't ever be outsourced. Al Gore referred to it as climate crisis in his convention speech. But
Gore was not on the prime time coverage I viewed. He is still gung-ho on reducing dependence on big oil and coal, but even Gore did not refer to the term Global Warming--except in reference to McCain backing away from "mandatory caps on global warming pollution" legislation. The Republicans are off to a slow start with their convention due to hurricane Gustav. Last night Joe Lieberman did mention global warming briefly: If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never
would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do
something about global warming. I will be listening tonight and tomorrow to the speeches--especially for specific mention or even a hint of Global Warming or Climate Change. I think the whole issue has cooled off in light of the large temperature drop this year and the majority of Americans wanting us to drill domestically. McCain's choosing Sarah Palin from an oil producing state leads me to believe we won't be hearing much about it. *The article stated that for record keeping purposes, they count summer as being June, July, and August instead of the June 22 - Sept. 22 definition of summer. **Pretty ironic. The Democrats have been blocking these energy sources in Congress, but now that the American public is demanding domestic drilling, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear is OK?
Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin, Vicki Mckenna
|
More Posts
|
|