Posts Tagged ‘climate change’


May 8, 2013

I got another e-mail from Organizing for Action.

David —

If I said to you: “Unicorns exist, I totally just saw one galloping down the street,” most likely you’d give me a sad look and get on with your day.

But what if House Speaker Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee said they didn’t know if the science behind climate change was real. (Yeah. That actually happened.)

Now obviously, it doesn’t matter if I just make stuff up about unicorns. But it matters, and it matters a whole lot, that so many of our elected officials in Washington who represent us are denying science and using that denial to refuse to take action on climate change.

It’s actually dangerous — and it matters how we react.

Each and every day that congressional leaders hold on to their bizarre fantasy world, OFA is going to be there, not letting them get away with it.

Add your name and say you’re ready to hold climate deniers accountable.

We’re going to make them say it out loud — either double-down on their claims, or come to their senses. The National Academy of Sciences and more than 13,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers all confirm that the carbon pollution in our atmosphere today is causing dangerous climate change.

The sticky thing about the truth is that it’s the truth whether Congress likes it or not.

Unicorns don’t exist, climate change is real, and we said we weren’t going to let this go.

Sign here and help Congress get real:



Ivan Frishberg
Climate Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss out of hand an account of a unicorn viewing out. Although I have never seen a unicorn, that does not mean they don’t exist, although I have to admit the evidence that unicorns are real is slim. If a person who I know to be honest and not subject to hallucinations were to tell me that he saw a unicorn, I would believe that he either saw a real unicorn or something that resembled a unicorn until I found evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, if a person who has had a history of not being very honest or who has often made doomsday predictions that have never come to pass, than I would be more skeptical.

I do not believe that climate change is settled science. I am not a climate scientist, so it is not likely that I possess the information and training to determine that on my own. Nevertheless, I have observed that the people who have been pushing the climate change hypothesis have not acted in an honest or honorable fashion. There is the use of the word “denier” with the implied resemblance to Holocaust denial. This is not a scientific or logical argument. This is name calling. There is the rebranding of the name of the crisis. You never hear “global warming” any more. The expression now is “climate change”. Why is that? Could it be that the Earth has not warmed significantly in the past few decades? There are scientists who are apparently communicating with each other on the best means of manipulating data to obtain the desired results. Shouldn’t science be in the business of following where the data leads, even if it disproves a cherished hypothesis? What is carbon pollution? Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring component of the Earth’s atmosphere. Every animal exhales carbon dioxide as a waste product of respiration.

Then there is the fact that for most of my life I have been told that an environmental catastrophe is just around the corner unless drastic action, which somehow always seems to involve an expansion of government into everyone’s personal lives, is begun right now! There is no time to debate! We have to act! And yet, the catastrophe never comes. How many times do we have to listen to the boy who cried “Wolf!” before we stop listening to him?

It would be better if Ivan Frishberg stuck to believing in unicorns. Believing in unicorns would do a lot less damage.



Global Warming and the Lizard People

April 8, 2013

I had another point to make about the poll I referred to the other day but I thought it would distract attention from my discussion of the Anti-Christ, and anyway the post was getting to be long enough. Let me quote the article again.

It’s official: Americans love their conspiracy theories. Public Policy Polling asked voters to weigh in on 20 more infamous ones, and the results show that a not-insignificant number of people believe that President Obama is the anti-Christ (13%), Big Foot exists (14%), and the planet is secretly ruled by the New World Order (28%). Four percent think our societies are actually ruled by “lizard people.”

  • 21% believe the government covered up a UFO crash in Roswell; 29% believe in aliens
  • 6% believe Osama bin Laden is alive
  • 5% think Paul McCartney has been dead for decades
  • 15% think there’s mind-control technology hidden in TV signals
  • 37% think global warming is a hoax
  • 7% think the moon landing was faked
  • 15% think Big Pharma develops new diseases as a way to make money
  • 14% see the CIA’s hand in the 1980s crack epidemic

If you look carefully, you will notice that one of these crazy conspiracy theories is not like the others in terms of plausibility. It is insane to believe that lizard people rule the world or the CIA distributed crack to minority neighborhoods. It is more than a little silly to believe that Bigfoot exists or the Moon landing is a fraud. These sorts of things are possible, but the available evidence is against their being true. The belief that the New World Order or the Trilateral Commission secretly rules the world seems like paranoia, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to watch any group of powerful people who meet on a regular basis.

What about the idea that global warming is a hoax? Well, given that the behavior of some of the principal proponents of the idea that man made global warming will lead to catastrophic results has been less than honest in their dealings with the public and given that at least some of these proponents seem to have a political agenda that is quite unrelated to any scientific evidence, it does not seem that the theory that global warming (or is it climate change or climate catastrophe or climate chaos?) is a hoax is quite in the same league as these others.

To be fair, I am not sure if the scientists at the Climate Research Institute and elsewhere were consciously engaging in fraud. Their misbehavior may be more due to self-deception, wishful thinking and shoddy scientific technique. They did not take Richard Feyman’s advice.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you   easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful aboutthat. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Instead of presenting the facts the best way they could, too many decided the matter was so important that they had to be alarmist. If global warming is a real threat, then they harmed their cause considerably.

When you consider the business people and politicians who stand to profit from this sort of alarmism, would be carbon credit billionaires and world leaders who will leap at any excuse to gain more power for themselves (Yes, I have Al Gore in mind), then perhaps hoax is not too strong a word to use.

Of course, the idea here is to associate people who are unconvinced by any lack of evidence for global warming with crazy people who believe that the lizard people rule the world.

The fact that 37% of the people in a poll believe that global warming is a hoax does not, of course, make it a hoax. But then, listing the idea that global warming is a hoax with a group of less plausible ideas does not make disbelief in global warming less plausible. One hurricane, however strong, does not prove that the world is getting warmed, nor was Sandy unprecedented in its size and destructiveness. Sandy was a category 3 hurricane, while the highest rating is category 5. There have been worse tropical storms in the Atlantic.

Hurricane Sandy was the largest hurricane on record as far as actual diameter, as well as the second most destructive in terms of property damage, with 2005’s  Hurricane Katrina causing the most property damage. You have to consider, however, that coasts are more developed today than they were decades ago and property is worth more, not to mention that both these storms struck urban areas in the United States.

I suppose that it is too much to ask that a television meteorologist be familiar with logic and the scientific method though.


Let Them Die and Decrease the Surplus Population

February 21, 2013

If there is anyone today who would echo Scrooge’s callous dismissal of the poor who wanted better lives, it might be the contemporary Green movement. I have long believed that the more radical environmentalists are motivated more by misanthropy than by any abstract desire to save the planet. You really don’t have to read too much of their literature before you encounter their anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-technological, and ultimately anti-human ideology.

Robert Zubrin knows this better than most. Last year he wrote a book titled Merchants of Despair, which tells of the excesses of the environmental movement. Yesterday, he had a column in National Review Online, rebutting an editorial in the Denver Post, written by Phillip Cafaro. Cafaro writes of the link between illegal immigration and climate change. Robert Zubrin’s answer is worth reading but I want to examine how Cafaro’s editorial shows the anti-human bias of the Greens. Here are some excerpts.

According to U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet’s website, reforming immigration policy and combatting climate change are two of his key legislative goals.

But there is no evidence that the senator sees any connection between them, despite the fact that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified population growth as one of the two key drivers of global warming, and that most of the increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the past two decades has occurred due to population growth, while per capita emissions have remained relatively flat.

As can readily be seen, even at present immigration rates, the U.S. is on track for huge population increases during the 21st century, from a current population of 315 million to 524 million people by 2100. It is not clear how such increases can be accommodated in an ecologically sustainable manner.

Further increasing America’s already generous immigration rates, as proposed by Sen. Bennet, could add another 145 million people to our population. That increase itself is equal to almost half our current population. It would ensure that the U.S. more than doubles its total population by 2100, to 669 million people.

And make no mistake: Immigrants are not coming to the United States to remain poor. Those hundreds of millions of new citizens will want to live as well and consume energy at the same rates as other Americans.

All this suggests some obvious questions: What climate change mitigation measures does Sen. Bennet plan to put forward that could possibly equal the increased greenhouse gas emissions we would lock in by adding 145 million more new citizens to our population?

Now, my major concerns regarding immigration are assimilation and legality. I oppose illegal immigration simply because it is illegal. I bear no particular ill will for the immigrants but they are in violation of our immigration laws. I do not think it is wise to simply not enforce these laws. If there is a need for more immigrants in this country, than the laws should be changed. I oppose any sort of amnesty simply because I feel that it would be essentially rewarding people for breaking the law.

Having said all that, I have no problem at all with legal immigrants coming here and making a better life for themselves. It is my sincere desire that they do live as well and consume energy as much as other Americans. In fact, I wish that for higher standards of living all over the world. It shouldn’t be necessary to leave your home in the hope of having a decent life.

Cafaro feels otherwise. He wants the immigrants to stay home and stay poor. It’s necessary for them to stay poor and hungry in order to save the Earth. In fact, since there are really too many people, it might be best if they were to starve.


Barack Canute Obama

September 1, 2012

One of the highlights of Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was the line, “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

Steve Benen at MSNBC doesn’t think that is funny.

For those who can’t watch clips online, Romney said, “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

That’s great news for those of us who don’t have families on this planet.

Now, as a factual matter, Romney’s promise is itself rather strange. How “you and your family” will benefit from less access to affordable health care, less access to education, and fewer investments in roads and infrastructure is something of a mystery.

But even putting that aside, the aspect of Romney’s comments that was simply astounding was the ignorance. The Republican treated rising sea levels as a punch-line, as if the very idea of addressing the climate crisis is ridiculous and those who take this seriously are fools worthy of mockery.

Indeed, the Republican audience took their cues, literally laughing at Obama’s efforts to address global warming.

Also notice that, in Romney’s mind, there’s a distinction — the nation can deal with the climate crisis or we can help families, as if the two have nothing to do with one another.

When people in the future look back at Romney’s contempt for the idea of “slowing the rise of the oceans,” and his party’s willingness to bury their hands in the sand, history will not be kind.

Maybe I should explain the joke to him. The reference is to this speech that Barack Obama made just before the 2008  election.


For a politician to claim that his election will stop the rise of the oceans and cause the planet to heal is insane. Obama should have been laughed off the stage for saying something like that. It sounds like Canute commanding the tide to halt, or something mad that one of the crazy Roman Emperors, who though they were gods might say. The fact that many of Obama’s followers really seemed to believe Obama was some sort of savior is disturbing. Sane people see such statements as ridiculous and worthy of derision.


Obama healing the planet.

The Democrats seem to be upset that several speakers actually made fun of the President at the Convention. Well, to make a slight alteration of a famous statement of Winston Churchill’s, Obama is an proud man, with little to be proud about. This is America. In America, we do not worship our leaders. We mock them, especially when they seem to believe that they are doing us all some very great favor by deigning to rule over us. Barack Obama’s arrogance, as seen in that line of his speech, just cries out to be mocked.

Besides, like most people who are full of themselves, Obama has a very thin skin. If the Republicans keep teasing him, keeping it light and humorous, he will show the very ugly side of his personality. I am looking forward to the debates.

Global Warming is Here

July 6, 2012

As I write this, the temperature here in Madison, Indiana is 103° F. Does this mean that the end of the world is coming? According to the Washington Post, it might. I saw this article a couple of days ago but I have been busy at work and haven’t had time to write about it until now.

Fueled by the record high heat, this was among the strongest of this type of storm in the region in recent history, said research meteorologist Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory in Norman, Okla. Scientists expect “non-tornadic wind events” like this one and other thunderstorms to increase with climate change because of the heat and instability, he said.

Such patterns haven’t happened only in the past week or two. The spring and winter in the U.S. were the warmest on record and among the least snowy, setting the stage for the weather extremes to come, scientists say.

Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.

“In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we’ve seen that in the last few summers,” NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said.

The 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires.

If we have an unusually cold winter with a lot of snow and temperatures below freezing, can I announce that a new ice age is coming? I would hope that I would not be so foolish to say such a thing, except in jest. These people are doing their cause a great deal of harm with their alarmism. Yes, heat records were set, in the United States. So what? A hot summer in one part of the world does not imply that the mean temperature of the Earth as a whole is increasing. Making these kinds of statements is misleading and irresponsible.

Why is it assumed that an increase in mean temperature would be an absolute disaster? It seems to me that such an increase would have many effects, both positive and negative. It may well be that the benefits of a warmer planet would outweigh the disadvantages. It seems that the idea is that there is one set temperature of the Earth and any change would have unprecedented effects. But, we know that the mean temperature of the Earth has changed over time. A thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Earth’s temperature seems to have been warmer than today. Four hundred years  ago, during the Little Ice Age, the temperature was cooler. And, let us not forget the real Ice Ages, the last of which ended about 10,000 years ago. The only thing that is constant about Earth’s climate is that it is always changing.

The ideas of the global warming supporters and Greens generally seem to me to be based less on science than on a sort of religion, or a parody of Genesis. All the organisms of the world lived together in complete harmony and innocence in paradise. Instead of the serpent bringing sin into the garden, it is humanity that ruins everything. This might explain why some Greens are so misanthropic. Instead of humans being created in the image of God, their religion teaches that humans are devils who only destroy the Earth.

Perhaps I am too skeptical about this sort of thing but I grew up thinking that an environmental catastrophe was just around the corner. It hasn’t happened yet.



That last link is especially interesting. Did you know that Seattle has had unusually cool summers three years in a row? Or that, in this hottest summer ever, Scandinavia is having its coldest summer on record and Australia is having an unusually cold winter? All evidence of warming I suppose.

Global Warming and Global Government

March 20, 2012

I have long contended that the global warming/climate change/climate catastrophe/ whatever they’re calling it this week had less to do with the environment than with political power. It is nice to see myself vindicated straight from the Warmists’ mouths. Here in Scientific American is a piece by Gary Stix called “Effective World Government Will be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe“. I am sure Mr. Stix did not intend it, but this is a truly horrifying post. Since the post is short, I will quote the whole thing.

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.

There is a lot that can be said about such folly, but I will say just this. A government that has the power to make “species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors”, that has “the ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population” would have to be totalitarian on a scale that would surpass Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China. Since sociopaths and power seekers are drawn to such power like flies to honey, there is simply no way to ensure against a malevolent dictator, no matter how benevolent the founders might be. No doubt Gary Stix envisions an ecotopian paradise ruled by people of like mind, but it is far more probable that the world government he desires would be a totalitarian hell and people like him would be among the first to be sent to the Antarctian gulags.

Life Under the One World Government

Liar, Liar

February 23, 2012

Some time ago, I referenced Richard Feynman‘s famous 1974 Caltech commencement address, in which he discussed what he called “cargo cult science“. I think it might be a good idea to remember a small part of that address.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to
tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be
a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll
leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Feynman was not engaging in abstract moralizing. Science simply cannot function without that kind of integrity. It is essential to the enterprise of learning about the world we live that those who do the research be as honest as humanly possible about their findings. The credibility of science depends on this honesty.

This brings me to some recent developments in the conflict between the global warmists and the nefarious deniers. It seems that one Peter Gleick, the head of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security acquired  electronic documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. He planned to expose these deniers for the scoundrels they are and disclose the members of the secret cabal that is funding all of the climate change deniers. Perhaps this would have the same sort of impact the “climategate” emails had. The problem was that there wasn’t anything really sinister about the documents. Well, that is not a problem. He simply forged what he needed. Well, he hasn’t admitted to the forgery yet, but he has to be a prime suspect.

After getting caught, Gleick admitted his actions in a statement on Huffington Post. There has been a lot of commentary on this subject all over the place, and I don’t really have much to add. I do want to quote the last two paragraphs to make my point in this.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

I think that it is interesting that he claims to want a rational debate on the issue of climate change. In fact, the global warmists seem to want nothing like a rational debate on the issue. Instead they engage in name calling (deniers), alarmism, and squelching dissenting views.

But my main point is this. Between the climategate emails with their statements about “hiding the decline”, Michael Mann’s  hockey stick with dubious statistical methodology, and now this, climate science has some serious credibility issues. To put it bluntly, why should anyone believe anything they say? This is precisely the sort of thing Feynman was warning about. Unless a scientist is rigorously honest about his methods and his results, and guards against self deception mot of all, sooner or later there will be a problem with credibility.

What if the the climate change crowd are correct? I do not believe that they are, but I could be wrong. If so, they have badly damaged their case with these sort of antics, not to mention their inability to come up with credible solutions, and put the whole planet in danger.

Update: I think Walter Russel Mead has the best summary of this business I have yet read.

Like Dean Acheson addressing the communist menace, they were “clearer than truth.” They stretched evidence, invented catastrophes—vanishing glaciers, disappearing polar bears, waves of force five hurricanes sweeping up the coast, the end of snow—to sell their unsalable dream. Not all greens were this irresponsible, but many prominent spokespersons and journalists working with the movement were; ultimately the mix of an unworkable policy agenda and a climate of hype and hysteria holed the green ship below the waterline.

Of contemporary mass movements, the green movement has been consistently the most alarmist, the least constructive, the most emotional, the least rational, the most intolerant and the most self righteous.  What makes it all sad rather than funny is that underneath the hype, the misstatements, the vicious character attacks on anyone who dissented from the orthodoxy of the day, and the dumbest policy ideas since the Kellogg-Briand Pact that aimed to outlaw war, there really are some issues here that require thoughtful study and response.


December 23, 2011

When I am deciding whether or not to buy a book on some contemporary and controversial subject from, the first thing I do is check out the one-starred reviews If there are a number of such reviews from hysterical liberals who obviously haven’t read the book, I know it is worth reading. I have not been disappointed yet.

Watermelons by James Delingpole amply fulfills that criterion. Liberals are hysterical, and it is really, really good. Basically, the premise is that everything you think you know about global warming is simply wrong. Delingpole begins by examining the science and politics of global warming. Although the generally accepted narrative is that of a few brave Greens fighting against the power and money of Big Carbon, the truth, as Delingpole shows, is that there is quite a lot of money and potential power on the warming side. Far from being Davids, the environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, or the Environmental Defense Fund are Goliaths in their own right with operating budgets as large as any multi-national corporation and CEOs with six-figure salaries.

The science is also far from settled. Along with the inherit uncertainties of modeling a system as complex as the Earth’s atmosphere, Delingpole also exposes the corruption of science and the fraud revealed in the Climate gate e-mails, and other sources.  He also debunks many of the myths that are still being used by Warmists.

Then there is the question of motive. Many Greens are in fact the watermelons of the title, that is to say environmentalists on the outside, but socialists on the inside. These are people who have decided that the only way to save the Earth and provide social justice is to circumvent national sovereignty and democratic institutions to form a sort of world government.  We might think they are all eco-Fascists but they are doing it all for our good.

This sounds a bit like the sort of crazy conspiracy theory promulgated by the sort of people that wear tinfoil hats, as James Delingpole readily admits. He has provided extensive citations to prove his points and as he points out, it is hardly a conspiracy when the people involved publish their plans for all the world to see.

I strongly recommend Watermelons as an enjoyable and informative guide to the science and politics of climate change. I think it would be an excellent gift to any Liberal friends or relatives. Not that it would change any minds, but it is always fun to watch Liberal’s heads explore when they have contact with information that doesn’t fit their worldview.


Climate Change

December 3, 2011

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed it yet, but it seems to me that the weather has been getting colder for the last month or so. I think we may be in for another ice age, no doubt caused by CO2 emissions or something. We have to put together a world-wide treaty protocol that will destroy the world’s economy in order to prevent this coming climate catastrophe.

I have also noticed that the days seem to be shorter lately. I wonder if maybe the sun is going out.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

July 31, 2011

Whether you are a true believer worried about the terrors of global warming (climate change/climate catastrophe) or a skeptic who wants some solid information to convince your friends, you have to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and the Environment. If this well-researched book does not play an important role in finally debunking the global warming scare, then nothing ever will. Alas, I fear that nothing ever will since the hypothesis of manmade global warming has proved to be strangely unfalsifiable.

Even those who have followed this issue closely are sure to find at least one eye opener in this book. Just a few examples include,


  • The earth has not gotten warmer since 1998
  • There is no direct link in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature. Solar activity has far more influence
  • The 1990’s had a higher temperature than average because the weather stations in Siberia were closed down after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • The Kyoto treaty is completely ineffective. Most of the countries that are increasing their carbon emissions, including China, India, Brazil, are exempt. Assuming the alarmists are correct, then at best, the Kyoto treaty will reduce the temperature increase by .07 ° C. That is assuming that the emission targets are met, which is impossible.
  • Evil corporations do not fund the global warming skeptics. In fact there are several corporations that stand to benefit from global warming legislation, including Duke Energy, DuPont, and BP


If after reading this book, you still are not convinced, ask yourself this. Why do the alarmists resort to deception so often?  From the climategate scandal to the hockey stick fraud, they exaggerate and lie. Why do they try to suppress dissenting views, if the science is all on their side? Why do they claim a consensus when none exists?


%d bloggers like this: