You Are Going To Read Bizarre & Zany Junk Below

And I’m not speaking to what I write below.

Fair Use Notice

I don’t know how many human leeches associated with the United Nations are sucking the blood from taxpayers and other contributors, but the number is huge if the weird ideas floating from their (the leeches) besotted brains are any indication.

English: A leech (Hirudo medicinalis) beginnin...

English: A leech (Hirudo medicinalis) beginning to suck. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s  no shame or embarrassment  demonstrated when their hocus pocus to end global warming or climate change is trotted out.

We can say the leeches are not only brazen, but also tireless to the extreme. Their silliness is limitless as they waste time, money and other valuable resources.

They deserve to be prosecuted for being a drain on society as they continue with their elitist bull butter. Of course, most everything with the United Nation’s stamp of approval is wasted motion.  You should read the story which follows the link just below if you wish to find what they are doing now:

Zany & Bizarre

Enhanced by Zemanta

Marita Noon: A Serious Threat Or Something Similar

Thanks to Ms. Noon for another thoughtful article.

Greetings!

I’ve been in Washington DC for the past week and have meetings on Capitol Hill Monday morning. (Expect future columns to reflect the new information I’ve gathered and new contacts made.)

Here on Sunday afternoon, I have a gap and thought I’d take advantage of the opportunity to get this week’s column out to you early. Unfortunately, due to the unpredictable nature of travel, while I completed Climate change: A serious threat (attached and pasted-in-below) yesterday afternoon and thought I’d sent it to my proofreader, she didn’t get it. I was out, but was able to jump through a few hoops and get it to her—and then, she got it to me and I sent it on to Townhall.com. After all the extra effort that went into getting everything worked out to get Climate change: A serious threat done, I was so disappointed to have awakened in the middle of the night to check on it, only to discover it wasn’t posted. This happens every now and then. I trust, as is usually the case when this happens, it will be up at midnight. All that is to explain why I’ve not included a link at the top as I usually do.

Again, due to my travel schedule, I leaned heavily on a friend and climate change expert for this week’s column: Bob Endlich. We started with a piece that was written by Richard C.J. Somerville, climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego Institution of Oceanography. His op-ed was published in newspapers from coast-to-coast. It was so filled with false information that we couldn’t resist exposing the lies. We had fun putting Climate change: A serious threat together. I hope you find it to be a valuable weapon in your climate change arsenal—which you need because climate change is a serious threat (be sure to check out the links in the last paragraph)!

Please post, pass on and/or personally enjoy Climate change: A serious threat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Marita Noon, Executive Director

Energy Makes America Great, Inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1380

Climate change: A serious threat

The current cold covering a large portion of the country has, once again, brought out the climate change alarmists with claims of “serious threat.”

Due to his respected position, as climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego Institution of Oceanography, Richard C.J. Somerville’s recent “Cold comfort” column was published in newspapers throughout the country.

In it, he grouses that the public doesn’t take the “consequences” of climate change seriously—pointing out that they are “here and now.” He cites: “only 54 percent of the public sees it as a global threat to their countries—and only 40 percent of Americans do.”

Somerville suggests: “people either are scientifically illiterate or reject science when it conflicts with their core values or religious convictions.” He posits: “the medical profession and communication experts may have much to teach those climate scientists” because “Priming patients to appreciate the value of medical diagnostic tests has been shown to make them more likely to take these tests and then act on the results.”

What Somerville misses in the analogy is that the data backs up the medical case. For example, getting a mammogram catches breast cancer early and increases survival rates. The data has shown that medical science is correct.

On the contrary, the data doesn’t support the claims made by climate scientists—but they just keep making them. Apparently they believe the “big lie” propaganda technique used so effectively by Adolf Hitler.

In Somerville’s column, he offers several familiar, easily disproven statements:

  • “Low-lying areas are threatened by sea-level rise” which will result in “millions of environmental refugees” and
  • “Major threats to agricultural productivity as rainfall patterns change and as heat waves, floods, droughts and other weather extremes worsen.”

Because my expertise is in communications not climate, I reached out to someone who could help me: Robert Endlich—who does in fact have both the education and experience. Endlich, who served as a USAF weather officer for 21 years and holds a BS in geology and an MS in meteorology, offered me pages of data and documentation, which I’ve summarized for my readers.

Environmental Refugees

If the threat of “environmental refugees” sounds familiar, it should. The 2005 UN Environmental Program forecast 50 to 100 million climate refugees. A UN report by Norman Myers: “Environmental Refugees, an Emergent Security Issue,” presented at the 13th Economic Forum, in Prague, May 23-27, 2005 predicted: “The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010,” and “When global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding.” His report was accompanied by a map, indicating areas to be impacted by sea-level rise.

In early 2011, Gavin Atkins asked: “What happened to the climate refugees?” In his Asian Correspondent post, he used census records to show that the populations in the low-lying areas predicted to “flee a range of disasters including sea level rise” had actually grown—including no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China.

Based on both in-person observation and historic evidence from Western Europe, Endlich has made a study of sea level rise. Citing geological features such as stream meanders upstream of Pisa on the Arno River and new shorelines on the coast of the Ligurian Sea, and history, he told me: “What may be news to many is that there is widespread evidence in the Mediterranean Basin and the English Channel coast that sea levels in Roman and Medieval periods were significantly higher than at present. The Roman port of Ostia Antica, the port at Ephesus, now in Turkey, and Pisa have histories showing the Mediterranean Seas significantly higher than today’s sea levels.”

Endlich continued: “In 1066, William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is when William landed, he first occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor on England’s south coast. A drawbridge connected castle to mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown out this “Sea Gate,” so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast—further proof of higher sea levels fewer than 1000 years ago.”

The glacial-interglacial temperature data from the past 400,000 years shows each of the previous four interglacials significantly warmer than at present. In fact, a careful analysis of the ice cores from East Antarctica, published as a letter in Nature, shows that maximum temperatures from previous interglacials were at least 6C/10F warmer than present-day temperatures, with CO2 values then about 280 PPM, and today’s values near 400 PPM. Leaving one to ask: “if CO2 is such a strong cause of warming, why is it so cold today?”

Worsening weather extremes

Somerville stated: “The consequences include major threats to agricultural productivity as rainfall patterns change and as heat waves, floods, droughts, and other weather extremes worsen.” Endlich shared the following with me:

Heat Waves: Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology offered Senate testimony on January 16, 2014. She showed an analysis of 982 stations from the U.S. Historical Climate Network for the 48 continental states with more than 80 years of record.  The data show a strong peak of record maximum daily temperatures occurred in the 1930s, with no increasing trend in the post-WWII years when CO2 started its modern increase.

Of the 50 states, the number of state maximum record temperatures obtained from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, by decade, shows that in the 1930s, 23 states set their all-time high temperatures, by far the largest number of such record highs. There has not been a single state record maximum set in the 21st Century.

Droughts: The most-often used indicator of drought is the Palmer Drought Severity Index. Curry’s testimony included a PDSI chart, showing the most severe droughts in the 102-year record 1910-2012, were in the 1930s and a lesser maximum in the 1950s. Data show no indication that drought severity has increased as CO2 has increased.

Floods: Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., from the University of Colorado, testified to the Senate EPW Committee on July 18, 2013. With respect to floods, he provided data from the US Geological Survey, which show in the U.S., floods have not increased in frequency or intensity since at least 1950, and that flood losses, as a percentage of GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940, based on data from NOAA’s Hydrologic Information Center.

Somerville says that increasing CO2 will harm plant productivity, but the opposite is true.  First, realize that both plants and animals, including humans, are carbon-based life forms. With increasing CO2, there is an incredible array of beneficial effects spelled out in the book, The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, by Craig Idso and Sherman Idso. The benefits include: increasing water-use efficiency; increasing biomass in roots, stems, flowers and nectar; larger seeds; avoiding human starvation and plant and animal extinctions; stimulating early plant growth; and resistance to plant diseases. The carbohydrates we consume when we eat are derived directly from CO2 in the atmosphere; carbohydrates are the source of the energy we need to survive and thrive.

Climate scientists, such as Somerville, do have something to learn from the medical profession: if you want people to heed your warnings, they need to be backed up by the data.

Somerville’s climate refugees cannot be found. In the recent past, interglacial periods were at least 6C/10F warmer than the present with a lot less CO2 in the air; and the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods were significantly warmer than at present. By historic accounts, sea levels were many feet higher as recently as 1066 and 1300 AD. His claims of heat waves, floods, drought and agricultural disruption are easily disproven by looking at real-world data.

Somerville’s argument points out: “climate change does involve serious threats.” The serious threat is the Obama/Podesta partnership pushing the executive order pen to punish people with new policies that kill jobs and increase energy costs all in the name of supposedly saving the planet.

Marita82313

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alaska Cold And Getting Colder

State Seal of Alaska.
State Seal of Alaska. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Up or Down, colder or warmer, man-made or natural course of things.  Gore says warming  and caused by man.  And he probably has a warm feeling since he has ripped the Albatross from his neck through the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera.

Not now, but back in December 2012, the Alaska Dispatch reported Alaska was (get ready) not warming, but cooling in degrees over a certain period … still increasing in degrees of decline when the article was published.

While some employees of certain government agencies will rush to dash cold water on this Alaska cooling trend, we are sure cooler heads will prevail if the foregoing does not make their blood boil.

Anyway, just click on the link below to read the Dispatch piece:

Even The Flounders Are Floundering In The Cold

Please read any related articles found below:

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Or What’s To Blame For Sandy?

Every so-called climate scientist is trying to sell his or her explanation for the cause of Sandy and other huge storm systems.  And as usual, humanity is touted more times than not as the primary cause.  Here’s a short video that say otherwise.

Blame Sandy On What?

Related articles

 

Marita Noon: Democrats Don’t View Climate Change As A Winning Issue

Democrats don’t view climate change as a winning issue

Marita Noon

Nobody pays much attention to the party platform–including the party, until some piece of it makes headline news. At last week’s Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, the official “platform” was destined to the usual low profile until the Republicans made headlines over the fact that the Democrats had dropped the word “God” and removed language regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel–both of which were present in the 2008 party platform. One day after approving the official party platform, the omission was reversed in a contentious voice vote from the floor that attracted even more attention to the matter.

Addressing the relevance of a party platform, NPR said: “The platform itself is a relic from the days when the parties were far more important institutions.”

While the platform may hold little sway over the candidate’s views or what actually happens in the next four years, it does outline some distinct contrasts between the parties on some major issues. For example, the Republican platform opposes abortion under any circumstance, while the Democratic platform supports abortion at any time. Both, also, have well-known, opposite views on gay marriage. These differences where highlighted last week in Charlotte as the Democrats gave key speaking spots to Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards and Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke and to openly gay Representatives Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin. One report cites an Orthodox Jew–sporting a beard and a payot and wearing a black suit and broad-brimmed hat–as saying: “In speech after speech, they promoted gay marriage. I don’t think there was a single speech without it.” Even Michelle Obama’s speech supported the controversial themes.

Clearly, the DNC hasn’t shied away from polarizing issues–which makes the public absence of another platform plank all the more curious: climate change.

The 2012 Democratic Party Platform mentions climate change 18 times, while the 2012 Republican Party Platform mentions it only once (page 40)–and then only to criticize “the emphasis on climate risks in Obama administration military planning documents.” The Huffington Post calls climate change “one of the starkest contrasts between the recently released Democratic and Republican party platforms.”

Some of the climate change language from the 2012 Democratic Party Platform includes:

“We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation–an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. We affirm the science of climate change, commit to significantly reducing the pollution that causes climate change, and know we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. President Obama has been a leader on this issue. We have developed historic fuel efficiency standards that will limit greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history, made unprecedented investments in clean energy, and proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants. As we move towards lower carbon emissions, we will continue to support smart, energy efficient manufacturing. Democrats pledge to continue showing international leadership on climate change, working toward an agreement to set emission limits in unison with other emerging powers. Democrats will continue pursuing efforts to combat climate change at home as well, because reducing our emissions domestically–through regulation and market solutions–is necessary to continue being an international leader on this issue. We understand that global climate change may disproportionately affect the poor, and we are committed to environmental justice.”

“We can … concentrate our resources and attention abroad on the areas that are the greatest priority moving forward. This means directing more energy toward crucial problems, including longstanding threats like nuclear proliferation and emerging dangers such as cyber attacks, biological weapons, climate change, and transnational crime.”

“The national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe. That is why, in addition to undertaking measures to enhance energy independence and promote efficiency, clean energy, and renewable sources of power here at home, the President and the Democratic Party have steadily worked to build an international framework to combat climate change. We will seek to implement agreements and build on the progress made during climate talks in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, working to ensure a response to climate change policy that draws upon decisive action by all nations. Our goal is an effective, international effort in which all major economies commit to reduce their emissions, nations meet their commitments in a transparent manner, and the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can mitigate the effects of climate change and invest in clean energy technologies. That is why the Obama administration has taken a leadership role in ongoing climate negotiations, working to ensure that other major economies like China and India commit to taking meaningful action. It is also why we have worked regionally to build clean energy partnerships in Asia, the Americas, and Africa.”

“And we will continue to champion sustainable growth that includes the clean energy that creates green jobs and combats climate change.”

With the scare tactics involved–calling climate change “one of the biggest threats of this generation,” a “catastrophe in the making,” a “national security threat” that is “real, urgent and severe,” and one of “the greatest dangers we face” likened to “terrorism, nuclear proliferation, cyber and biological attacks,” and “transnational crime”–you’d think it deserved at least as much mention on the podium as abortion or gay marriage. There shouldn’t have been “a speech without it.” However, according to a report by the Daily Caller, it received only one mention in more than 80 speeches during the first two days. Additionally, none of its big supporters were given a spot on the podium. Neither Representatives Henry Waxman or Ed Markey–the authors of the failed cap-and-trade bill, nor the high priest of global warming, Al Gore, were given a role in Charlotte. At the 2012 DNC, unlike 2008 where he “strode onto the stage at Denver’s Invesco Field to a hero’s welcome,” Gore reportedly was “nowhere in sight.” Markey was in town and did participate in an off-site panel discussion on energy hosted by Politico. There he called clean energy “a debate that wins.” He said, “We think this revolution is something to brag about.” Yet, the best attention the green energy/climate change issue got was a vague reference to “increasing climate volatility” from a “least watched” speech by Tom Steyer, co-founder of the Advanced Energy Economy trade association, a “passing reference” from Bill Clinton regarding “reducing greenhouse gases,” and, on Thursday, former presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry added: “an exceptional country does care about the rise of the oceans and the future of the planet.”

Why so little attention for an issue that is one of the “biggest threats of this generation?”

Perhaps, just days away from the anniversary of the Solyndra scandal, they didn’t want to remind people of President Obama bragging about how Solyndra is the model for green jobs of the future, only to have them fail–costing more than a thousand jobs and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Or, how the failed green-energy loan guarantee program exposed the favor his friends in high places received.

Maybe they didn’t want to draw attention to Obama’s failed promise to push through a cap-and-trade program–as was a part of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform. Or, to the higher energy costs the green-energy emphasis has brought to manufacturing–causing jobs to be outsourced–and that “disproportionately affect the poor.”

They probably didn’t want to have to answer questions about CO2 emissions being the lowest in twenty years without the onerous, job-killing policies favored by the Democrats. Or, why European countries are abandoning their green-energy policies, ending green-energy subsidies, and are pursuing coal, shale gas, and off-shore drilling.

Whatever the reason, the obvious exclusion at the DNC makes clear that the Democrats don’t view climate change as a winning issue. The strong language included in the party platform is more likely, as NPR stated: “the platform is used as a pressure valve for activists within the party’s base.”

In contrast, Republicans realize the economic damage and job-killing ramifications of pursuing an agenda like that laid out in the Democratic Party Platform. They know that, right now, jobs and the economy are where they need to focus–and that is “something to brag about.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Related articles

Donna Crawford: Rebuttal To Man-Caused Global Warming

 

For those of you who don’t subscribe to the Alb. Journal, I’ve given you a link to the referenced article.  You might not still be able to see the whole article, but you’ll see enough to get the idea.  I just sent this Op-Ed to the Journal this morning, so it is as yet unpublished.

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/07/news/teen-takes-on-gov-state-over-climate.html

OP-ED                    Donna L. Crawford, 19 Lucero Rd., Los Lunas, NM  87031        505/864-7225

Albuquerque Journal, Aug. 7, 2012, “Teen Takes on Governor, State Over Climate”.  This is the second time the Journal has printed an article about Akilah Sanders-Reed on the front page slanted as if she is some kind of teen super-hero.  While I give kudos to teens being interested in science, the naivety of this girl is overwhelming.

For starters, I would hope that she knows that she is being exploited by WildEarth Guardians and similar other radical environmental groups.   They’re using her as a poster-child for their anti-coal, evil CO2, man-caused global warming agenda.

Before the media continues to make her out to be this teenage wonder woman championing her climate-change/man-caused global warming cause, perhaps there should be a few questions asked:

Did Sanders-Reed attend all of the cap and trade hearings, both under the Richardson Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) when they imposed cap and trade on NM and under the Martinez EIB when they repealed NM Cap and Trade?  It would have been nice for her to have heard both sides of the story.  I attended all of these hearings in Santa Fe and one clear point that was brought out was that New Mexico has some of the cleanest air-quality in all of the states.  Sanders-Reed should be proud of the air-quality in our state rather than siding with radical environmentalists against our Governor.  But alas, she drank the climate change “Kool-aid “after hearing a speech when she was 14 that turned her into a climate-change activist”.

Does Sanders-Reed know the origin of all this climate-change/man-caused global warming nonsense?  Global warming is the driving force behind the United Nations Agenda 21 program.  The global sustainablists needed a dire threat to enforce their plans.  Global warming and the threat of global Armageddon became the issue of choice.  The Club of Rome and the Council on Foreign Relations, two of the world’s globalist leaders, put the whole sustainablist agenda in prospective when it said: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”.  They made us feel guilty, and the guilt worked for awhile until real science began to show that there simply is no evidence of man-caused global warming.  It didn’t take long for the truth to surpass the lies.

Does Sanders-Reed know that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant?  Just because the EPA says it’s so, doesn’t make it so.  To quote Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director of The Heartland Institute, “Someday the world will wake up and laugh when they finally understand that the entire pursuit of economic ruin in the name of saving the planet from increasing carbon dioxide is in fact a terrible joke”.

One last question:  Does Sanders-Reed know that renewable energy (wind and solar) only has a certain limited capacity factor and has to be “backed up” by building more, not less, coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants?  She talks about her and her generation “being stuck with the consequences of climate change”.  Without “back up” coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants, perhaps she should consider the consequences of her generation dealing with rolling black-outs, power-outages the likes of which she’s never seen, and only being able to use electricity when the government says you can do so.

Donna L. Crawford, 19 Lucero Rd., Los Lunas, NM  87031       505/864-7225

Related articles

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels Rips Hansen

 

Global Warming Joke

 

President Bill Clinton installing computer cab...

Both with their mouths open … catching flies? President Bill Clinton installing computer cables with Vice President Al Gore on NetDay at Ygnacio Valley High School in Concord, CA. March 9, 1996. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This comes from Mark Huppertz:

I edited this graph adding  Al Gore’s ridiculous “hockey stick” graph information. It’s good information for the informed.

Thanks,

Mark Huppertz

Double Left Click For A Larger Image

 

“If I Wanted America To Fail …”

Just watch the video below:

This one comes to us from Sandia Tea Party Member,  Butch Stackpole.

Thanks for finding this Butch!

Related articles

The Man Is Seriously Grasping

Al Gore's Hearing on Global Warming

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

When former Vice President Al Gore uses racism to make a connection to so-called global warming or climate change, try as he might, he’s still wrong about the climate and he should be shamed for his comparison.

Racism is wrong, period.  It doesn’t take scientific proof to know that it is wrong.  The supposition there is proof that climate change and/or global warming can be almost entirely placed at the feet of humans, is just so much malarkey.  At least the warmists have shot themselves in their ample buttocks in many of their attempts to turn loose fiction into solid facts.

Here is this man (Gore) who wants to be the spokesman and arbiter of all things carbon.  One probably would not be wrong to suggest that not only does he risk what fame he has left, but he is probably heavily invested in carbon credits and renewables.  Should his preaching to the world fail, he is likely to see his fortune crumble around the weak foundation of his gospel.  Let’s look at some of  the latest news made by him and listen to some of his attempts to equate racists with global warming deniers.  From The Daily Caller and Caroline May:

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcasted on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis.

“Win the conversation?”  Or twist the tests?  There has been enough twist and shout with polar bears, the Himalayas, Siberia and flora and fauna about which we have forgotten.

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

There’s more to read and a video to see and hear at this link.

Plink on the related articles for more on Gore … if you can stand it.

Things We Didn’t Know — I’m Sure There’s A Simple Explanation For Global COOLING

Satellite view of Asia.

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Here are the headlines from a Reuters article: Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming -study.  Of course the warmists will say, “Of course — we knew it “always.”  It just seems so simple.  I mean the way the mantra of the warmists dovetails with their “evidence” of fossil fuels being the main evidence for anthropogenic reasons for global warming and now this study — a perfect “mating” of the minds, don’t you think? The story goes:

Smoke belching from Asia’s rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland’s University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fuelled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

So, here I go with my ignorant mind:  I now understand there has been no global warming since 1998; at least according to this article. Is this what the warmists have said?  I don’t think so:

A U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that it was 90 percent certain that humankind was causing global warming..

There’s an elusive 10% … must be those stupid skeptics.  But wait!  There’s was before the above:

“It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008,” said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Nino (sic) weather event, a natural shift which brings warm waters to the surface of the Pacific Ocean every few years.

Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.

“A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Niño weather event in the Pacific which brings warm water, yada yada …”  Yes, you have read right and El Niño is in no way anthropogenic if it is natural and not a natural result of something humans have mucked-up..

It looks, according to this new revelation, as though COAL is the culprit along with efforts to cut pollution:

Sulphur aerosols may remain in the atmosphere for several years, meaning their cooling effect will gradually abate once smokestack industries clean up.

The study echoed a similar explanation for reduced warming between the 1940s and 1970s, blamed on sulphur emissions before Western economies cleaned up largely to combat acid rain.

“The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution,” it said.

Read the last quoted paragraph until you have it memorized.  I am flummoxed by this new information when coupled with the tubs of bull butter previously spread.

Here is the link to the complete article. Related links below.