Skip to content

Archive for

30
Apr

NOKXL Anti #Fracking Campaigns A Slow Path To Genocide

The effort by believers of Catastrophic Climate Change to shut down the production of cheap energy from fossil fuel are despicable. Without the availability of cheap energy humanity will be forced to regress back to an era when life was short and brutal. Energy Poverty is no Utopia. Campaigns to shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline, fracking and create a “fossil free” world are a little more than a slow path to genocide and economic suicide.

Reblogged from Financial Review:

PASCAL BRUCKNER: THE FANATICISM OF THE ECO-APOCALYPSE

  • Date: 22/10/12
  • Financial Review, 20 October 2012

When a celebrated French philosopher from the centre left assails the despotic politics of environmental fear he should expect a dressing down from his climate change-conscious comrades. But Pascal Bruckner has incited such fury with a diatribe against green prophesiers of imminent planetary ruin, the reaction has surprised even this veteran of the transatlantic culture wars.

Pascal Bruckner Photo Miguel Medina

The planet is sick. Man is guilty of having destroyed it. He must pay, is how Bruckner caustically portrays the received wisdom on environmental sin and damnation in his latest book Le fanatisme de lApocalypse (The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse).

Consider … the famous carbon footprint that we all leave behind us, he writes in his introduction. What is it, after all, if not the gaseous equivalent of original sin, of the stain that we inflict on our Mother Gaia by the simple fact of being present and breathing?

Subtitled Sauver la Terre, punir lHomme (Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings) the book rails against a peculiar Western malady. Yes, concerns about the environment are legitimate, Bruckner asserts, but catastrophisme is transforming us all into children put in a panic in order to be better controlled.

It is a feistier-than-usual polemic for Bruckner, a leading member of Frances new philosophers who emerged from the 1970s left with searing critiques of Marxism. Later this year, it will be published in English as Fanaticism of the Apocalypse by Polity, Cambridge, translated by Steven Rendall.

As the Jesuit-educated philosopher sees it, extreme climate change alarmism, with its warning bells chiming The end of the world is nigh, repent ye, represents a worrying new doctrine of ideological purity that even has totalitarian overtones.

Worst of all, Bruckner argues, these political commissars of carbon have betrayed the best of causes and turned the discourse of ecological terror into the dominant ideology of Western society.

Dividing his argument into three sections, provocatively titled The Seduction of Disaster; The Anti-progress Progressives; and The Great Ascetic Regression, Bruckner scorns the peddlers of the propaganda of fear.

It is a muscular thesis delivered in typical elegant Bruckner style, citing philosophers, playwrights, novelists, political theorists and green activists from Martin Heidegger to Goethe, Moliere, Gustave Flaubert, Hannah Arendt, and Frances Yves Cocher.

However since the book appeared in French late last year, Bruckner has been pilloried in certain quarters as a reactionary turncoat aiding the worst climate change deniers. He has seen some publications that traditionally laud his work decry Fanaticism of the Apocalypse as hedonistic, deluded and dangerous.

Le Monde devoted four pages to say to what extent my book was bad, false and full of lies, which is rather curious, Bruckner says, with a slight edge to his voice, as we are ushered into an upper room in his local cafe, Le Progres, in the Marais neighbourhood of Paris. When his last book, The Paradox of Love, a reflection on the vicissitudes of the modern God of Amour, was released in 2009, it was critically acclaimed and became a bestseller.

But I took a risk, he explains of his latest controversial work. It was [written in] a fit of anger. I went against todays dominant ideas. There is widespread greenwashing including in our thinking. The dominant passion of our time is fear.

One blistering assessment, in Liberation newspaper, was headed The Fanaticism of Denial. The article accused Bruckner of being a pleasure-addled baby boomer stuck in pre-global warming nostalgia for the insouciant Trente Glorieuses, the 30 years of postwar French prosperity before the 1970s petrol shock.

The philosopher insists he cannot be classified as a climate change negationist in fact the opposite, because he decries the virulent strain of denial among US Tea Party radicals and even mainstream Republicans.

I do not attack ecology per se, Bruckner says of his book. I attack that degraded religion which emerges from it and turns into a culture of fear, hatred of progress and well-being.

Why must we renounce all the joys of life under the pretext of global warming?

While Bruckner fights off multiple critical assaults, he is still held in high regard by French critics and the reading public for hismultidisciplinary dissertations on the dilemmas of modern Westernlife.

He is well known in the English-speaking world for his philosophical explorations of notions of happiness: Perpetual Euphoria: On the Duty to be Happy, and The Utopia of Love (an English translation of his 2010 essay Has Marriage for Love Failed?) is expected to be published soon.

His award-winning novel Bitter Moon was translated into 20 languages and turned into an acclaimed film by Roman Polanski, with Hugh Grant and Kristin Scott Thomas.

The authors special passion is, he says, Western guilt. Tears of the White Man, published in 1983, explored culpability regarding our colonial past, and in The Tyranny of Guilt, published in 2006, Bruckner examined the burdens of contemporary penitence about Western power and influence.

But as Bruckner judges it, a panic is now gripping Western elites, as they rapidly lose power amid the rise of countries like China, India and Brazil.

Since we no longer dominate the world, we live in a permanent terror film and every day they [ecologists] explain to us that it is a miracle that we are still alive.

The absurdity of this propaganda of fear which recalls that of [former US president] George W. Bush regarding terrorism is that we have never lived so long.

We are living in a post-technological Middle Ages. Our mentality is that of the medieval peasant serf who sees maleficent forces in nature.

Everything is dangerous. Simply to live has become an impossible task.

We are afraid of everything of mobile phones, of food, of dummies, of nappies, of antennas. We are living in a society which has a horror of risk and therefore is afraid of its own shadow.

Intelligent responses to environmental degradation are therefore required rather than radical belt-tightening and privation in the form of a retreat from nuclear power and even domestic heating.

There is this famous notion defended by the ecologists of negawatts: the best energy is that which we dont expend, the philosopher almost sneers.

Yes, we need to make some savings. But wealth reproduces itself and life cannot simply be a subtraction. It is like saying the best life is the life we dont lead. This is a kind of neo-Malthusianism.

The love affair between Bruckner and the French intelligentsia stretches back to his electrifying arrival on the Paris ideological scene in the mid-1970s.

Alongside Bernard-Henri Levy, Andre Glucksmann and Alain Finkielkraut, he was a member of the nouveaux philosophes, a bunch of dashing, idealistic young thinkers who urged a break with the Maoist and Marxist left.

In a nation that reveres philosophers sometimes as much as its film stars, the prolific and eloquent Bruckner soon became a bona fide celebrity.

He even played himself on film this year, taking a cheeky cameo role alongside Finkielkraut in the romantic comedy LAmour dure trois ans (Love Lasts Three Years).

During last years Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair, he flattered the French with his notorious evisceration of puritanical Americans.

Laughingly categorising himself an old new philosophe (he is 63) Bruckner is a self-described optimist who believes in progress, enterprise and the market. This makes him a rare breed of intellectual in gloomy France, and sometimes gets him into difficulties with his home-town audience.

I think I touched … a faith and a belief in the goodness of nature, in the noxiousness of progress and in the just case of ecologists, he says of the outrage generated by Le fanatisme de lApocalypse.

I put into question a certain number of dogmas and they do not forgive me.

But they [political ecologists] are crazy. They propose nothing and are opposed to everything the car, the TGV [French high-speed train], the atom, i.e. nuclear power, petrol, coal, natural gas. At the end there is nothing left!

Bruckner enthusiastically describes himself as a left-leaning liberal with a proud attachment to the Anglo-Saxon outlook.

Until now, such affiliations rarely posed problems for his compatriots.

The problem with people on the left is that as soon as you start to reflect a little on the impasses of the left, you are labelled a reactionary, he says.

He speaks warmly of his annual trips to teach in American and occasionally British universities, confessing he has always appreciated this sort of confidence in man which we have lost in France.

In France there is a scepticism with regards to progress in general that we do not find in either the US or England, he says. So I am a mix of the two [French and Anglo-Saxon].

Still, Bruckner detects suspicion about the merits of industrial progress not only in France but across the Western world, wherever extremist environmental politics has taken hold of public debate and even language.

The credo consists of saying to developing countries stay poor because we became rich, we did evil to the planet and therefore everyone must impoverish themselves.

This discourse is a smokescreen to hide the anxiety of Westerners who have lost their supremacy in the world, Bruckner retorts.

Ecology is a means for us to say to these emerging countries stay in the mud, remain broke, and moreover do not try to equal us because the industrial adventure is a failure. In this sense the discourse is perfectly scandalous.

_Lhttp://www.thegwpf.org/pascal-bruckner-the-fanaticism-of-the-eco-apocalypse/_WebResourceResponseOA

30
Apr

2012 : A Record Data Tampering Year

2012 : A Record Data Tampering Year.

 

The overwhelming evidence against Climate Change Alarmism can no longer be denied. The facts are the AGW models were wrong. A rise in co2 has not resulted in a rise in global temperatures as the models predicted. 

 
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming… 

 
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf
The report was written by Emil Røyrvik
SINTEF ICT, Technology & Society, Senior research scientist
http://sintef.academia.edu/EmilR%C3%B8yrvik

AGW believers like President Obama refuse to see the truth about the outcome of their false belief in Climate Alarmism

has on humanity and nature. Denying people access to cheap and reliable energy from our vast and abundant fossil fuel
resources are paving the way to a slow moving genocide & economic suicide http://wp.me/p36QXu-as

 

27
Apr

Emil A.Røyrvik: The Debate on Man Made Global Warming

“Those who call themselves „Green planet advocates‟ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

This is a sensible document: H/T to Gabe Rychert at Climate Realists

climbabelConsensus and Controversy

The Debate on Man Made Global Warming
Emil A.Røyrvik

SINTEF
Technology and Society

Conclusions:
To illustrate the way that scientific, political and ethical concerns are mixed in the debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming this report used the by now famous quote from Gro Harlem Brundtland , that ”doubt has been eliminated”, and that it is ”irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation ” as a point of departure. The goal of the report was to enter this debate and “ battlefield ” of arguments and take stock of the debate about anthropogenic (man – made) global warming. Based on the present review of this debate there are several conclusions to be drawn. The first and simplest one is that considered as an empirical statement, the assertion that “doubt has been…

View original post 1,459 more words

25
Apr

The Mask Comes Off – And It Is Ugly Underneath

Real Science

tumblr_lmn6xkGY0i1qcay1ao1_500

All of their data tampering, and bullying, and threatening, and lying, and generating ad hoc theory on the fly (i.e. pulling it out of their asses) – can’t hide the fact that CO2 driven global warming is not happening.

View original post

24
Apr

The #nokxl Anti #fracking Pipe Dream: Economic Suicide

Below are a series of posts reblogged from a Slate article “More Than A Pipe Dream” 

The posts expose the sinister underpinnings of the anti fossil fuel movements drive to deprive 
the people of the world affordable and abundant energy from fossil fuel and nuclear power.
If the Green Movement are successful in achieving their anti-fossil fuel agenda the outcome
will be a slow moving genocide and economic suicide which appears to be the Green Movements 
not so hidden agenda as illustrated below: 
 


HELLO 
ORACH24463_CJ
 | Edit Profile | Log out

  orach24463_cj

The following document cites 1100 scientific skeptic papers disputing the so called “consensus” that co2 is the primary cause of catastrophic climate change. Below is an exerpt from one of them:  

 
Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences 
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 41-48, March 2011) – Norman R. Paterson 
 
The paper states that: “According to popular belief, recent global warming has been caused largely by greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, accruing in the atmosphere, and man is responsible for most of the ~120 ppm increase in CO2 over the last 100 years. This article cites a number of recent peer- reviewed scientific papers, and finds that contrary arguments by a growing body of scientists are generally supported by better empirical data than those that favour the ‘anthropogenic warming’ hypothesis. These arguments invoke the effects of solar irradiance and ocean–atmosphere interactions, both of which have been shown to have warming effects at least as great as those claimed for CO2, and to be based on sound, well-understood scientific theory. Furthermore, the global warming models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others have in some cases been shown to be incorrect and contrary to current temperature statistics. For 
PROJECT’NO.’ REPORT’NO.’ VERSION’ 
 
The paper concludes by stating:  
 
“As a preliminary conclusion of this chapter we simply note that there are strong scientific currents of dissent and continuing questioning on most aspects of climate change and anthropogenic global warming, and it happens also to a large extent in the peer-reviewed mainstream journals of “normal science.” Thus the claim of a near 100 % consensus and lack of dissent on key aspects of AGW is simply not true, and likewise, the claim that “mainstream science” is closed off to dissenting voices is also not true.” 
 
The truth is their is no scientific consensus that co2 is the primary cause of catastrophic climate change. Over a 1000 scientific papers cite the sun and ocean currents as having an equal or greater impact on the climate than co2 does. Moreover, over the past 16 years or more there has been no rise in global temperatures despite the rise in co2. Condemning humans to a slow motion economic suicide and genocide by denying them access to affordable and reliable energy from the abundant fossil fuel resources is despicable. Power to the people not the powerful politicians, their crony green capitalists and environmental movement friends and so called climate change “scientists” whose catastrophic climate change predictions have been proven by reality to be false.  
 

SocialBlunder
The paper you quote was written by a 91 year old miner. Not a climatologist. 

Its primary arguments are: 
It’s the sun – refuted by comparing solar activity and global temperature: 
It’s Cosmic Rays – refuted by comparing cosmic rays and global temperature: 
CO2 can’t be responsible: compare outgoing earth’s radiation over time and compare to CO2 concentrations 
Models are wrong: Compare IPCC model predictions to actual temperatures 
 
His paper is simply a “greatest hits” of denier arguments, not even an analysis of what it promises in the abstract – to evaluate reliability of data.

orach24463_cj
The overwhelming evidence against Climate Change Alarmism can no longer be denied. The facts are the AGW models were wrong. A rise in co2 has not resulted in a rise in global temperatures as the models predicted. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming… 

 
The Skeptical Science Blog you cite is a well known anti science blog full of rigged data and erroneous arguments that are easily refuted.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/05/more-shamele…  
 
As to the the scientific paper reference in my above post being written by a “91 year old miner” just what are you smoking?http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf 
The report was written by Emil Røyrvik 
SINTEF ICT, Technology & Society, Senior research scientist 
 
Again, you refuse to see the truth about the outcome of the false belief in Climate Alarmism has on humanity and nature. Denying people access to cheap and reliable energy from our vast and abundant fossil fuel resources are paving the way to a slow moving genocide & economic suicide http://wp.me/p36QXu-as

orach24463_cj
In reply to one of your below posts: Thanks for admitting that the AGW Alarmists true agenda is population control based on fear mongering and lying to people about Catastrophic Climate Change. Again a favored tactic of the left is to mock people who disagree with them instead of addressing the facts. As to your assertion that population control as a means of “saving the earth” from the impact of all those pesky humans who are “a plague on the earth” is really in their best interests, 1930s Germany had a similar ideology of a “Master Race” purging the world of undesirable “useless eaters”.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craz…  

 
So when judging my posts as “bizarro” I suggest you do some soul searching and see that the roots of your misogynist ideology is not only “bizarro” it is pathological.http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-…

SocialBlunder
Reading comprehension: fail. 

Comprehensibility: fail (misogynist???) 
Violation of Godwin’s Law: Success 
Replying to yourself: Success 
Reposting from thread to thread: Success 
 
Congratulations – you are now qualified to argue tirelessly against logic, common sense and science.

orach24463_cj
Failure to comprehend the sinister underpinnings behind the false belief in Catastrophic Climate Change. A+
Michael Jones

 
“Most climate scientists trace global warming to the relatively rapid buildup of atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels long sequestered deep underground. 
 
Though only 0.04 percent of all the gases in the troposphere, where weather happens, CO2 is second only to water vapor as the most abundant greenhouse gas. And where a water molecule may remain airborne for up to 10 days before returning to the surface as rain, a newly emitted molecule of CO2 can remain in the air for centuries. 
 
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have reached the highest level in at least 800,000 years, reaching 395 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of all gases in the atmosphere – 395 parts per million – some 45 to 50 percent higher than preindustrial levels.” 
 
from the article link.

orach24463_cj
The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwhelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconventient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. Ihttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-cli… In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emissions.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet.  

“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.” 
 
So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on their fallacious and dire predictions of Climate Catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c… Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apocalyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s? In their nihilistic world view Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Sickos.http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/345-9/

SocialBlunder
You keep posting articles from business papers and bizarro blogs as proof that AGW doesn’t exist. Please just find one peer reviewed scientific paper that claims anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming. 

 
What is with the bizarro claims that climate change gurus are driven by the quest for power wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity? Can you even name a guru driven by his/her loathing of humanity? It really sounds like you have a severe case of “shoot the messenger”.

orach24463_cj
It appears you did not read my post. 

Humans are a ‘plague on Earth’: Sir David Attenborough warns that negative effects of population growth will come home to roost 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough He is considered as one of the most renowned environmentalists of all time 
 
“Humans are transforming the planet in ways that could undermine any development gains. Mounting research shows that the stable functioning of Earth systems – including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles – is a prerequisite for a thriving global society,” he writes, with colleagues. 
 
Prof David Griggs, director of the Monash Sustainability Institute in Australia, argues in an article in the journal Nature that it is no longer enough for countries to solely pursue the poverty alleviation targets enshrined in the millennium development goals (MDG) that were agreed in 2000 but run out in 2015. 
 
 
As to your claim that my references are “bizarro” I beg to disagree The references link to scientific data that is irrefutable. Stop denying the fact depriving people from cheap and abundant fossil fuel is a slow motion way to economic suicide and genocide promoted by a false belief that co2 emmisions are destroying the planet

SocialBlunder
Earth is finite. At current growth rates, humans double in population every 70 years. 

 
Stating those facts doesn’t mean that environmentalists loathe humanity, it means that they love it and want to prevent what happens to every other species when their population overshoots what their environment supports. 
 
If you don’t think humanity transforms the earth in ways that undermine development gains I invite you to breathe the air of Beijing, fish in the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone, hunt the passenger pigeon and drink the water of the Ganges. 
 
As for the bizarro nature of your links, I would ask that everyone visit your favorite link to your eponymous blog and judge your credibility for themselves:https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist… 
 
Your own words indict you more powerfully (and humorously) than I ever could.

orach24463_cj
Thanks for admitting that the AGW Alarmists true agenda is population control based on fear mongering and lying to people about Catastrophic Climate Change. Again a favored tactic of the left is to mock people who disagree with them instead of addressing the facts. As to your assertion that population control as a means of “saving the earth” from the impact of all those pesky humans who are “a plague on the earth” is really in their best interests, 1930s Germany had a similar ideology of a “Master Race” purging the world of undesirable “useless eaters”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craz… 

 
So when judging my posts as “bizarro” I suggest you do some soul searching and see that the roots of your misogynist ideology is not only “bizarro” it is pathological.

SocialBlunder
Reading comprehension: fail. 

Comprehensibility: fail (misogynist???) 
Violation of Godwin’s Law: Success 
 
Congratulations – you are now qualified to argue tirelessly against logic, common sense and science.

Rob
Are 98% of all scientists wrong about climate change? I think not. I find it difficult to ignore the rapidly increasing warming of both polar ice caps, the change of oxygen level in large parts of the oceans (fish cannot live in these areas), the devastating rise of the oceans and the violent destruction of many of our cities by floods, tornadoes and hurricanes. And of course, even if you do not accept climate change, we all should be concerned about the fact that we will eventually run out of oil and gas. Also, fracking is probably causing small earthquakes where it is being practiced indicating that we may be playing with fire with potentially large earthquakes.
dilbert firestorm
undoubtedly, this is economic sabotage. bleed’em dry with money, hopefully, they’ll go bankrupt. that’s their thinking it seems. 

 
btw, Why is oil pipeline going south to the Gulf if its destined to go to Asia? wouldn’t the route be shorter if the they took a westernly route????

orach24463_cj
Sounds like “economic sabotage” indeed when the truth is clear co2 is not the main cause of climate change the sun is.  

 
Here is the data on the influence the Sun has on the climate  
And here  
 
NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”  
 
and here,  
 
Fritz Vahrenholt: The Cold Sun “‘I feel duped on Climate Change”  
 
Also, “global warming stopped 16 years ago”  
 

SocialBlunder
The only reliable source you quote (interestingly without providing a link) is NASA. Let’s see what they have to say about the sun’s influence on their award winning climate site: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes 

 
Oh look – a sidebar on the right hand side captioned “Is the sun to blame?” 
 
“How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends? 
 
Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn’t appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.” 
 

SocialBlunder
DF: South is where the refineries are. Canadians don’t want the pipeline traveling through their own country. The US Gov’t behaves like a 3rd world banana republic when oil is involved, so the Canadians don’t have to endanger their own environment.
orach24463_cj
German Renewable Energy Goes down the tubeshttp://notrickszone.com/2013/02/24/germanys-renewa… “Worse, the more wind and solar systems get installed, the more intermitently the conventional systems end up running, thus making them far less efficient and costlier. Result: Germany’s entire energy production system is rapidly becoming sub-par. That’s bad for the environment, the consumer’s pocket book, and for the country’s global competitiveness. 

 
Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.” 
 
Again, reality disagrees with the warmest theories of renewable energy as a viable replacement for cheaper, more abundant and reliable energy from fossil fuel. Before their Warmest false belief in man made global warming does more harm to the poor and nature Warmests need to take a deep breath and wake up to the fact they were wrong. CO2 is not the main driver of Climate Change the Sun is. Renewable Energy is a pipe dream. Their pie in the sky dreams of a “fossil free world” do great harm to the poor of the world. The only people who benefit are the powerful in government and their crony Green capitalist friends.https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist…

orach24463_cj
“At the end of the day, if the Greens cared about the air, the temperature and the trees, they could care about the data used to track these things. They would care about the outcomes. Anything less is just “seeming” to care.” 

 
The truth is the warmest or greens don’t give a f@#$ about the truth. All the Warmests care about is feeling” good about themselves for saving the earth from “climate change”. Admitting they were wrong would make them feel bad about themselves. 
The poor can just “eat cake”. Admitting the truth would just upset all the acolades, money and power the elites in the Green movement get from their false belief in Climate Change. Power,money and accolades from their peers in the elite Green movement is what counts. Affordable and reliable power from fossil fuel for the people that would raise them up from poverty is forbidden.  
Sickos.

SocialBlunder
I followed his blog and was captivated by the dizzying intellect on display. For example: The reality is the Leftists sees a woman’s right to choose an abortion as a tool for achieving their real goal of saving the earth from overpopulation which is in “the common good”. 

 
I had no idea a single feverish sentence could do so much damage to grammar, logic and common sense. Continuing the the same vein for many many paragraphs, the post finally culminates:  
The radical Left in main fear and loath humanity. They believes humanity is responsible for destroying the planet and through use of a strident cacophony of lies have conned their followers into believing they are on humanities team when in fact they are not. The Left is on the team of death. Death to humanity that is. According to the radical left population control and more poor people are in the the best interests of “the common good.” Especially if you are in 1% on top of the heap who calls the shots. 
 
This must be what mommy is warning me about when we have the talk about the dark corners of the Internet. Those radical lefties are terrifying.

orach24463_cj
The truth about the ideology of the Left is “terrifying” One of the favored tactics of the Left is to mock anyone who disagrees with them in an attempt to evade the truth. Instead of denying the truth why not do some soul searching and respond to the facts.  

 
Again, reality disagrees with the so called Climate Change “Scientists”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-… CO2 man made emissions play a minor role in climate change.  
It is the Sun Stupid.  
“The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.” 
 
Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2, that is the major driver of climate change can be found here: 
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yo… PLUS a former warmest, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt,”TheColdSun” who now believes it is the Sun (not co2) that is the major driver of climate change  
 
Warmists are now admitting that their goal to stop global warming is impossible to achieve. http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/22/trapped-stefan-rahmstorf-declares-pretending-to-be-better-than-facing-reality-playing-into-skeptic-hands/Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are useless and waste billions of dollars that could be spent in a much better way on other things like creating jobs and alleviating poverty and disease. Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to pursue something that is not only unattainable but waste billions of dollars on useless activities that causes great harm to poor people? Could it be money and power plus a good dose of hatred towards humanity? https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-sin 
 

SocialBlunder
Money quote from “Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2”: 

 
Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world. “Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has at least five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.” 
 
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine river has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change. 
 
The ftp link you post of the ocean temperatures show them rising. Shocking! Check it out for yourself!!! 
 
Do you know you have been scoring points for the evil leftists with those links? In my ideal world you would be a double agent draining funds from the Merchants of Doubt while creating arguments so perfect in their inanity that they drive people to believe in AGW. Unfortunately it is more likely that your unwitting links to papers and data that contradict your conclusions simply reveal a lack of wits.

orach24463_cj
Sorry but you just admitted that co2 is only one possible cause of climate change. The fact the Sun is also cited as a cause of climate change is the point. Reducing c02 emissions is not the answer. Humans have no control of the Sun. Ergo it is pointless and wasteful to spend billions of dollars on trying to stop climate change via alternative energy which is more costly and toxic to the environment than fossil fuel.
SocialBlunder
If the sun were increasing in intensity, that would be true. Unfortunately it is not – sunspots have been decreasing since the 1950’s.http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml 

 
If global temperature followed the sun, it would be decreasing. 
 
So – why is air temperature remaining at record levels and ocean temperature increasing if not for the sun? CO2.

orach24463_cj
FYI, Here is the data on the influence the Sun has on the climate 

And here 
 
NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.” 
 
and here,  
 
Fritz Vahrenholt: The Cold Sun “‘I feel duped on Climate Change” 
 
Also, “global warming stopped 16 years ago” 
 

SocialBlunder
You keep quoting NASA on the sun. Please see right hand sidebar on NASA’s climate site about the sun’s effect on global warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes 

 
No one denies that the sun has an effect on climate. However, the sun’s irradiance is decreasing while the temperature has been increasing.

cj orach
Warmists are now admitting that their goal to stop global warming is impossible to achieve. /Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are uselhttp://notrickszone.com/2013/04/22/trapped-stefan-… Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are useless and waste billions of dollars that could be spent in a much better way on other things like creating jobs and alleviating poverty and disease. Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to pursue something that is not only unattainable but waste billions of dollars on useless activities that causes great harm to poor people? Could it be money and power plus a good dose of hatred towards humanity? https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-an…
dsimon
“Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying.” 

 
I’m sure this claim could be addressed by anyone who cared to think about it (or read one of my previous posts). But here goes…. 
 
A carbon tax could easily be rebated to low-income households. So higher energy costs need not be a regressive burden on the poor and still put energy-saving incentives in the right places. 
 
Also, it’s possible that global warming is more of a danger to the poor than modestly higher energy expenses. Heat can kill, and not everyone can afford a/c. And the expense of a/c can take away from other purchases that promote health (such as health insurance). So mitigating the effects of warming as much as possible can be a net gain for low income households.

cj orach
It is a lie that if the government has control over our vast fossil fuel resources energy will be more fairly distributed and lead to a “cleaner environment” Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the UK government control over energy resources has led to poor people freezing to death. All around the world billions of people have no access to electricity and are condemned to live in energy poverty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Government control over energy has also led to so called “green energy” that is more costly and toxic to the environment than fossil fuel energy.https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/green-e… The people should not be denied access to abundant and affordable energy from fossil fuel when the alternative is more expensive, scarce and in many case toxic “green” energy. The people who benefit from “Green Energy” are a corrupt few in government and their crony green energy industry friends who use confiscated tax payer dollars to line their pockets while the poor people are forced to pay higher prices for electricity and fuel. See the http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/ Power to the People Not Corrupt Politicians and their Crony Green Capitalist Friends. Higher Energy Costs = More Poor People = More Children Dying 

 
Than there is the fact that reality disagrees with all the Climate models “proving” co2 as the main driver of climate change.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/22/model-data-d…

dsimon
Germany has a highly regulated energy industry with a fairly high renewables quotient. There have been some recent complaints about its solar program, but I don’t think it’s causing people to freeze to death. 

 
And in the US, government “control” over water and air have led to cleaner water and air for all, which benefits the rich and the poor alike. 
 
If the concern is with with the “energy deprived,” surely that can be taken care of with funds other than those used to protect the environment. It’s not a false choice of either/or. How about ending subsidies for hugely profitable companies and using those funds to help those who are “condemned to live in energy poverty”? 
 
“Higher Energy Costs = More Poor People = More Children Dying” 
 
You keep posting this, even though I explained why it isn’t necessarily the case. Just repeating something over and over won’t make it true. 
 
I’ll add another reason why those connections aren’t necessarily true. Say the price of gas goes up 30%. If your next car is 30% more efficient, then it doesn’t cost you a penny more to drive around as you did before. So higher prices can lead to greater efficiency which results in no increase in expenditures. It may even lead to savings.

orach24463_cj
You keep ignoring reality.  

German Renewable Energy Goes down the tubeshttp://notrickszone.com/2013/02/24/germanys-renewa…“Worse, the more wind and solar systems get installed, the more intermitently the conventional systems end up running, thus making them far less efficient and costlier. Result: Germany’s entire energy production system is rapidly becoming sub-par. That’s bad for the environment, the consumer’s pocket book, and for the country’s global competitiveness. 
 
Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.” 
 
Again, reality disagrees with the warmest theories of renewable energy as a viable replacement for cheaper, more abundant and reliable energy from fossil fuel. The fact is warmest need to take a deep breath and wake up to the fact the Co2 Climate Scientists were wrong. CO2 is not the main driver of Climate Change the Sun is. Renewable Energy is a pipe dream. Warmests pie in the sky dreams of a “fossil free world” do great harm to the poor of the world. The only people who benefit are the powerful in government and their crony Green capitalist friends. https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist… 
 
Higher Energy Costs from Renewable Energy = More Poor People = More Children Dying

SocialBlunder
Err – if conventional systems run intermittently, it would be expected that they are more costly. On the other hand, the more used renewables become cheaper. That sounds like an excellent result if you want to have renewable power instead of carbon based power.
dsimon
“Renewable Energy is a pipe dream.” 

 
Not in Denmark, apparently. “[E]arlier this month Danish wind turbines sent nearly 4 GW into the electricity grid, only about 800 MW shy of meeting the nation’s entire energy needs. (Though in reality the energy is sold to other European countries.) The Danish government has targeted wind to produce half its electricity by 2020, double its current rate.”http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/artic… 
 
“You keep ignoring reality.” 
 
You keep ignoring my points. Since you didn’t dispute my argument that higher energy prices can lead to more efficiency and therefore may not lead to more expenses and more poor people, I assume you concede the point. Again, just reposting your claim won’t make it true.

Michael Jones
Sad what this fellow wrote, it will not matter at all if we do not stop the warming, 

What will money matter if there is a major crop failure and there is no food in the market? We got a taste of Global Warming and this is just the start. 
These people that charge at what they call “warmists” will just fade from the scene.

View more items
Zarko
At some point the author needs to stop and recognize that his fantasy about the wacko fringe of environmentalism having a meaningful impact on politics is just that. The more the alarmists exclaim their alarm, the more the public yawns. 

 
Keystone is probably inevitable. You know what else is inevitable? That the climate change alarmists will lose. Whether or not their apocalyptic predictions come true, we’re not implementing any more policy to address them than we are policy to address the coming rapture.

slatepal
It’s pretty amazing that so much so-called “science” about global warming has its basis in fuzzy models later found by real statisticians to contain significant errors and in repeatedly corrected data (as one example, NASA’s Global Institute of Space Studies initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931, respectively. After questions were raised by a scientist named McIntyre, GISS rejiggered the list to show 1934 as the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. Since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs as 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921 and 1999. The institute blamed “a minor data processing error” for the changes. How many statistical and “minor data processing errors” exist in these models and how much faith do you have in numbers that keep changing? 

 
I have also read that if we don’t go forward with the pipeline, the Canadians plan to sell the oil it to China, so I’m not sure our failure to participate will have much effect globally. (Might be better here since we do have much stricter clean air and environmental rules than China.)  
 
I have also read that the Canadian federal National Resources Department already determined that heavy (tar and) crude is not more corrosive than light crude and that Batelle Labs studied it and says that six of the seven Canadian diluted bitumen crudes have lower corrosivity than the Western Canadian Blend, a conventional crude. Not only that, but all seven of the Canadian diluted bitumen crudes have a lower corrosivity than Mexican Maya crude and Colombian crude from the Rubiales Oil Field, which have been transported by U.S. pipelines for more than 40 years.  
 
The Congressional Research Service says that opponents of the oil sands tend to ignore a significant stage in the life of a fuel – the combustion phase – which accounts for 70-80 percent of emissions. On a lifecycle, or well-to-wheels, basis, greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands are on par with the average barrel of U.S. imported crude oil (See IHS CERA’s report). 
 
Hard to know who to believe sometimes.

cj orach
Warmists are in denial about the fact their models got it all wrong.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/All the so called “peer-reviewed” papers “proving” man made climate change were wrong. Whereas 450 peer reviews skeptic papers were ignored by the scientists promoting man made climate change http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-45…Than there is the inconvenient truth that March was the coldest year since 1659http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/hadc…
SocialBlunder
If you are right, all those climatologists are either more ignorant than Watt or involved in an incredible conspiracy. Let me think about who I should trust… 

 
Which one of those 450 papers states that the atmosphere will not warm as CO2 increases? Which of them attributes the increase in CO2 so a cause other than man? 
 
March is the coldest _year_? In any case, HADCET is representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. Global climate is something else entirely.

cj orach
 

Again, reality disagrees with the so called Climate Change “Scientists” Why is it so difficult to accept this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-…CO2 man made emissions play a minor role in climate change. It is the Sun Stupid.  
“The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.” 
Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2, that is the major driver of climate change can be found here: 
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yo… PLUS a former warmest, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt,”TheColdSun” who now believes it is the Sun (not co2) that is the major driver of climate change  

SocialBlunder
Dude – did you even read the paper you say confirms that it is the Sun, not CO2? Here is a quote: 

 
Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world. “Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has at least five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.” 
 
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine river has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change. 
 
The paper confirms what everyone knows – the sun AND CO2 (and another 3-4 significant variables) drive climate. Does CJ Orach know you are scoring points for the evil Leftists?

SocialBlunder
You convinced me. All those climatologists are now looking up at that big yellow ball of flame in the sky wondering how they missed the obvious.

23
Apr

Climate Change Alarmists Beliefs A Path To Slow Moving Genocide

The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwhelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconventient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. Ihttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-cli… In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emissions.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet.  
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/th… 
“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.” 
 
So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on their fallacious and dire predictions of Climate Catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c… Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apocalyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s? In their nihilistic world view Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Sickos.http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/345-9/
23
Apr

Dana’s Planet

The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconventient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emmisons. No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet.

So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on direpredictions of Climate Catastrophy from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity? Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apoclyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free as well? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s. Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death. Sickos.

the Air Vent

UPDATE: Nic Lewis left this interesting comment down below –

Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes. Not a mean in sight! And it refers to the mode as the “best estimate”. Nor does Figure 9.20 (where the estimated PDFs for climate sensitivity from Forest 2006 and other studies are shown, labelled EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity) mark the means. And Forest 2006 itself only reported the mode.

So I’m not being either misleading on any count, or misrepresenting anything. But Dana is both misrepresenting my study and being misleading. What a surprise.

 

Skeptical Science has another silly post up which attempts to pick at the edges of Nic Lewis’s climate sensitivity paper.  They titled the critique “Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition”  We all know that Skeptical Science is filled with those who…

View original post 944 more words

23
Apr

Obama’s blood trail from Benghazi to Boston

Obama’s blood trail from Benghazi to Boston.

 The mainstream media is ignoring all of the failures of the Obama Administration from Benghazi to Boston. The common thread appears to be President Obama’s relationship with Saudi Arabia including the sheilding of the former “person of interest” the Saudi National Alharbi.
“A Saudi Arabian newspaper is reporting that United States First Lady Michelle Obama visited in the hospital Saudi citizen Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi Alharbi, the young man who had been labeled a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing.”

19
Apr

Boston Bombing Suspects???

Reblogged

http://www.punditpress.com/2013/04/sunil-tripathi-information-4182013.html

Sunil Tripathi Information 4/18/2013

BOSTON POLICE SCANNER: MIKE MULUGETA IS DEAD

3:06 AM: SUNIL TRIPATHI NAMED AS ONE OF THE SUSPECTS BY THE BOSTON POLICE. MIKE MULUGETA NAMED AS THE OTHER.

CONFIRMED 2:26: ONE OF THE ARRESTED IN THE MIT/WATERTOWN SHOOTINGS IS ONE OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBERS.

UPDATE 1:01 am EST: Holy shit, something’s happening at MIT. Three officers shot and two “Middle Eastern” Men firing at them with police and grenades.

There has been speculation, mostly kicked off by Reddit that missing Ivy League student Sunil Tripathi could be involved in the Boston bombing. He went missing last month without a trace. The FBI became involved in the case, even though it was a presumed suicide.Tripathi was a philosophy major at Brown University, not far from Boston, where the search expanded to. His father is a rich software engineer.


Right after he went missing, explosives were found near Brown University and destroyed in a controlled detonation. No one had been found behind it. The location is halfway between Brown and Boston.

The first incident was reported at 8:34 p.m. on March 12. Police and fire personnel responded to the area of Pine Street and Tower Hill Drive. Witnesses at the nearby Target store on Washington Street reported seeing a bright flash and hearing two explosions from that area.

Several unexploded devices were found at the scene and later detonated under secure conditions by the State Police Bomb Squad.
The second incident was a few days later at 7:49 p.m. on March 15. The second incident was near the first, in the area of Hearthstone and Fieldstone lanes. The area was searched but no explosives were found.

His former classmate was a bit freaked out by the whole thing:

His original Facebook profile was pretty standard fare, though the site meant to find him has gone offline.

18
Apr

Bombing Suspects Photo Released – Not A “Lone Wolf”

Reblogged:

 http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/bombing-suspect-photo-released/

Bombing Suspect Photo Released

Do you know who this man  is, and what countries he says he was born in?

ScreenHunter_05 Apr. 18 16.02

Real Science

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" - Richard Feynman

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

WeatherAction News

News on Piers, Earth & Space Weather Action, Climate, Seismic Hazards....it's the Sun stupid!

the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

tannngl

News of the day

The Big Green Lie

De-Bunking the Green Scam World-Wide

Inform The Pundits!

A sane person's attempt to make sense of the news

Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations

Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, and Other Climate Change Discussions

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Power To The People

Musings About The Incoherent Dichotomy Of The Liberal Mind

Pointman's

A lagrange point in life

hauntingthelibrary

Thinking from a different direction

sunshine hours

Question Authority

JunkScience.com

All the junk that’s fit to debunk.

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

The GOLDEN RULE

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise has been watching the climate world since 2009. What she sees isn't pretty.

%d bloggers like this: