NOAA: Third Coldest October On Record - so much for global warming!

National Overview: Temperature Highlights - October

The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.

For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.

Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT - June's chill in Chicago is one for the records

The Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change/Carbon Footprint/Carbon Dioxide/Cap and trade crowd should go hide for about 10 years just for embarrassing themselves so badly on the world stage.
Rees

from WGNTV.com
By Steve Kahnon in Chicago
article from June 12th

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.

Better days aheadEncouraging signs in recent computer runs signal a change to more typical June weather which by now should feature daily highs around 80 degrees. A return of sunshine should boost temperatures well into the 70s Sunday and Monday, though lake cooling will continue. By midweek a northward shift in the jet stream promises a steady diet of highs in the 80s, though showers and thunderstorms are likely to accompany the warm-up.
Click to read the article and the comments

Everything Black Needs To Be White...

from Cheat-Seeking Missiles
Posted by: Laer
May 29th 2009

Paint It White

Our Nobel Laureat energy sec, Steven Chu, has been chewing on an idea for a while and finally spit it out: Let’s save the planet by painting all the roofs and roads white!

Chu, speaking at the St. James’ Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, said the calculations are based on work done at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he used to work and where three researchers concluded last year that changing surface colors in the world’s 100 largest cities would offset 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (Source)

Who’s to fault the good scientists at Lawrence Berkeley? After all, they’ve scored millions of bucks to study the terrible effects of global warming, so they can be trusted. And besides, the idea is simplistic as can be, right? Just step from a concrete sidewalk to an asphalt street on a hot, sunny day.

But wait. What is the urbanized land mass vs. the global land mass? Factoring in the oceans, the arctic and antarctic regions (which already are white) and the massive amount of undeveloped territory, I’m sure it’s under one percent.

And why hasn’t Chu proposed to dye the oceans white?

And what is the greenhouse gas impact from manufacturing, transporting and applying all that white paint?

And what the heck are we going to do if Chu & Co. are all wrong and the long-anticipated global cooling process kicks off soon?

You see, this save the planet biz isn’t as easy as they crack it up to be
Click to read the article and the comments

China gets tough on climate talks - You cut, we won't

By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
and Fiona Harvey in London
from The Financial Times
Published: May 22 2009

China adopted a hard line yesterday ahead of climate change negotiations, calling on rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels and help pay for reduction schemes in poorer countries.

Beijing reiterated its belief that developing countries, including China, should curb emissions on a voluntary basis, and only if the cuts "accord with their national situations and sustainable development strategies".

It also demanded that developed countries be bound to give at least 0.5-1.0 per cent of their annual economic worth to help poorer countries, including China, to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with global warming

Although it only spells out China's initial bargaining position, the strident stance will encourage other developing nations to take tougher positions.

It will not be welcomed in Washington and Brussels, where policymakers yesterday made tackling climate change a central theme in bilateral talks with Beijing.

China's proposals are one of a series of demands made by developing countries as part of this year's crucial climate change talks.

Formal negotiations begin officially on June 1 in Bonn, with three or more meetings to follow before the final summit in Copenhagen in December to forge a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

Other developing nations have asked for higher percentages of the rich world's GDP to be transferred to poorer countries and have demanded emissions cuts of up to 80 per cent by 2020 from certain rich nations.

Officials in Europe and the US privately dismissed the Chinese demands as posturing. "They're hoping that if you ask for 1 per cent, you may get a small fraction of a per cent," said one.

China had taken a more helpful stance at the negotiating table - by discussing the many measures the Chinese government had taken - and had promised to take on improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy.

Rich countries accept that China, India and other emerging economies will not agree to absolute cuts in emissions in the medium term. But before they agree to finance packages to help poor countries tackle global warming, they want commitments from those countries to curb their emissions so that they do not rise to the levels they would reach under "business as usual".

China's unwillingness to offer early concessions could signal a tough road ahead for policymakers who hoped progress on this issue could lead to breakthroughs on other topics, such as trade, human rights and the military build up in Asia.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

CBO Fires Another Shot At Cap & Trade - A huge Tax On Everyone

from Cheat-Seeking Missiles
May 20th 2009
by Laer

The Dems dream of a vast new IRS is still alive even as Congressional Dems back off from Obama’s concept - cap and trade as a tax - in favor of a seemingly less onorous cap and trade as a grant concept. But that darn Congressional Budget Office just keeps on pointing out the obvious: No matter how its structured, cap and trade will be an economic Katrina on the American economy.

The CBO has issued a second letter opining on the Dem scheme, WashTimes reports:

Congress’ chief scorekeeper says the global warming bill moving through Congress will either be scored as a major tax increase or a massive expansion of the federal government - and either one could give opponents substantial ammunition to complicate Democrats’ efforts to pass a bill.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a letter sent last week to House Energy
and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, said Democrats’ approach of creating allowances for emitting greenhouse gases requires developing from
scratch a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars. …

The six-page CBO letter also listed repeated examples of situations in which, for purposes of the federal budget, it will assume that the cap-and-trade approaches will dampen businesses’ income, meaning less revenue to the federal government.

The Dem response? Well, they’re trying to work with CBO. They figure that maybe if they threaten the CBO budget or start making personal attacks on its staff, they’ll be able to get the watchdogs to change a couple assumptions and come out with a rosier report. In other words, they’re not looking at the bill, seeing it for what it is and deciding to wait until the economy is back on its feet to cut its legs out from under it. Instead, they remain intent on kicking the economy while its down and want to get fudged numbers to excuse their action.

Meanwhile, the environmental lobbying machine is busy discounting the CBO:

Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center, said the CBO will still have to issue a final score on the bill when it passes the committee, and NRDC hopes the letter is not the last word.

“What they have left out of their analysis is the benefit to consumers of energy efficiency - that actually lowers their bills. I don’t see anywhere in this long set of examples this accounts for that,” Mr. Lashof said.

That’s because the CBO hasn’t yet come up with the metrics to measure pipe dreams and fantasies. There is no energy efficient replacement immediately available that would allow us to avoid the immediate impacts of cap and trade. As one commenter to the WashTimes story sarcastically put the Dem view of things,

The CBO is full of partisan hacks who want to do nothing more than destroy this once great nation. But, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center is a straight down the middle lovable group who would never do anything that might tear apart the very foundations of our economy.

The new bill gives the GOP and blue dog Dems some hope that cap and trade might be the first Obama policy initiative to fall flat on its face. That certainly must be the goal, both to protect the economy from Warmie lunacy and to signal an end to the devastating run Obama’s enjoyed.

Do your part. Write your member of Congress and demand they tell you before they vote how the bill will impact your power bill and the price at the pump. Keep asking; hold them to it.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Cap-and-trade scheme will wreck U.S. economy

from The Washington Examiner
May 19, 2009

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, has teamed with Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, to produce the latest in a series of “cap-and-trade” bills designed to reduce carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions. Such emissions are produced when carbon-based fuels like petroleum and coal are burned to create energy to run things like electric power plants, automobiles and air conditioning systems. These emissions must be reduced because they are allegedly causing the earth’s atmosphere to heat up, with all sorts of lethal consequences following, not excluding death, destruction and the Final Apocalypse of All Mankind. The problem for such advocates, however, is that earth’s average temperatures have been declining for a decade, and a fast-growing number of climate and other scientists now question the root idea of a global warming crisis. These critics are increasingly banding together with elected officials and other experts in the public policy arena who see cap-and-trade schemes like Waxman-Markey as fatally flawed on two counts.

First, under Waxman-Markey, the government would establish a schedule of emissions reductions – 70 percent by 2030 – and a program of “credits” for businesses that meet the schedule. Those that don’t meet it can buy credits from companies that do, thus satisfying the government’s emission reduction mandate. The problem is that even under the most optimistic scenario, achieving the Waxman-Markey reductions would have only a negligible effect on global temperatures. Europe’s similar cap-and-trade program has been in effect for five years, yet has had no measurable impact on global temperatures. The U.S. effort is likely to fail, too, for the simply reason developing countries, particularly China and India, aren’t going to hobble their expanding economies, which will be dependent upon carbon-based fuels for the foreseeable future. Thus, at best, Waxman-Markey will reduce average global temperatures by much less than one degree.

That reduction highlights the second flaw, which is the excessive cost of achieving virtually no reduction in global temperatures. The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis used an econometric model of the U.S. economy to measure the projected impact of Waxman-Markey and found that by 2035, it would:

- Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,
- Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,
- Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,
- Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,
- Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,
- Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and
- Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

That is a prescription for wrecking American prosperity for decades to come.
Click to read the article and the comments

An Inconvenient Hypocrite.

image - artist unknown
article from Don Surber
May 16, 2009

Al Gore, the gift that keeps on giving

Remember his claim yesterday that he was Mr. Nice Guy toward the Bush administration? Yes, he only said in 2002: “From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right…”

Mr. Bitter.

Mr. Big Carbon Footprint.

Mr. I Was Raised To Be President By My Daddy So I Am Entitled To The Office.

If there is any single person more responsible for the deep partisan divide in this nation, it is the ungracious and conceited Al Gore. His disdainful comment — “I waited for two years after I left office to make statements that were critical, and then of policy” — are simply untrue.

He is a nasty little phony — burning up 20 times the electricity a normal person uses — who tried to hijack the election in Florida by unprecedented and absurd legal challenges that an unbiased press corps would have laughed off.

And now, Real Clear Politics has the goods on him. His own words: “From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right… the administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights… is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped.”

That is not a criticism of policy but a personal attack. And he did not wait 2 years to make it.
Click to read the article and the comments

Gore is a condescending POS. Watch the video...

This is a great article form the website Democrat = Socialist.
Rees



Al Gore: “I Understand Exactly What Your Doing Congresswoman!”

That’s why the climate commie Al Gore lost his cool and took a condescending tone. The Goracle DOES NOT like to be questioned.

Good for you Rep. Blackburn, don’t let that turd brow beat ya into silence. Contact Rep. Blackburn and show your support for making Al Gore squirm. Unrelated aside: That Marsha is so Cougar…

UPDATE: Seems I’m not the only one that noticed the Goracle rage…

It gets testy.

And Gore says, “if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you dont know me.”

Blackburn: “I’m not making accusations I’m asking questions that have been asked of me.”

Gore: “I understand exactly what you’re doing Congresswoman**, everybody here does.”

**He even called her “Congresswoman!” It has been well documented that Blackburn only wants to be called Congressman. Nice.

More… Continue Reading »
Click to read the article and comments

Democrats Refuse To Allow Opposition to speak

Democratic Motto: If you can't debate the facts, don't allow opposing facts to be presented.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Gore has been getting his butt kicked regarding global warming, oops, "climate change" because his data was BS. He had to rename his Global Warming scare agenda to be "Climate Change," because the temperature data for the last decade no longer supported anything remotely close to a global warming situation.

He is a farce, trying to make money off a non-existant problem. They are going to install all this cap and trade, carbon emission restrictions and co2 restrictions and then in another 10 years claim victory when there would now be 2 decades of non-global warming data.
Rees

By Marc Morano

"Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax -- and it's a great big one," Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) said Friday

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Click to read the article

Obama's VooDoo Science Czar

Obama’s Science Czar Channels H.G. Wells on Climate Change

John Holdren dreams up some scathingly brilliant, super-gigantic-expialidocious projects to head off global warming

April 13, 2009
by James Lewis
from Pajamas Media

How often have we seen the picture of Galileo Galilei facing the Office of the Inquisition in 1632? Galileo is held up as a scientific martyr today, because he fiercely defended the Copernican solar system against the Inquisition, which finally ordered him to stop publishing those ideas. Cardinal Bellarmine denounced Copernican theory as “a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”

Today we have a radical role reversal. Climate heretics like Dr. Fred Singer and MIT’s Prof. Richard Lindzen are telling truth to power — and they are bitterly criticized by our science politicians, just as the pope criticized Galileo. Singer and Lindzen are our Galileos, telling a truth that the leftist establishment and its organs of propaganda do not want to hear.

Today we have our own official science czar in the White House. John Holdren is a true believer in the imaginary faith of global warming. We even have an office for the propagation of the faith, spearheaded by NASA’s James Hansen. It is Hansen who goes around saying that the oceans could rise by 20 feet and that heretics — like oil company execs — deserve to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” This witch-hunting talk apparently passes for normal scientific discourse in Dr. Hansen’s mind. Hansen has not yet proposed burning oil company execs at the stake, but he is no longer a scientist — he is a true believer, just like a Scientologist. Real scientists don’t know the answers before the evidence is in. Hansen and Holdren know the answers — their faith passeth mere human understanding.

Now John Holdren has spoken up in an interview with the Associated Press, itself a big propaganda outfit. AP tells us that “Holdren outlined several ‘tipping points’ involving global warming that could be fast approaching.” (Notice the weaseling here. Anything could be fast approaching, like maybe a screaming intergalactic turtle, all ready to crash into the earth. Prove to me it ain’t so!)

The AP continues: “Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of ‘really intolerable consequences,’ he [Holdren] said.” But wait! This just in from the excellent skeptical site Watt’s Up With That? Steven Goddard writes:

The WUWT Arctic Ice Thickness Survey … is collected from the US military web site. All of the active military buoys show significant thickening ice over the past six months to a year.

Hmmm. I wonder if Dr. Holdren knows that the Arctic ice is actually getting thicker? Or maybe he just doesn’t care? Well, whatever. Holdren is convinced that doom is about to come upon us. As the AP tells it, “Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being ‘in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.’” He forgot to add, “with a hallucinating driver conjuring up imaginary dangers.” But that’s closer to the truth. Our real problem is not the earth or the CO2; it is the human beings who are now in power, fully prepared to scare the daylights out of us to squeeze out more power and more money for themselves.

Dr. Holdren knows he can’t just repeat the old cliches. If he wants big headlines around the world, he has to give the AP a new angle — the media beast demands to be fed. So Dr. Holdren obliges by holding out the hope of geoengineering, super-gigantic-expialidocious projects to give the earth a kind of aluminum foil layer, able to reflect the sun’s rays and thereby cool the earth. In the AP’s fawning prose:

The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air. … John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. …

“It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

Needless to say, this is so total science fiction. Nobody has ever done anything like it, but H.G. Wells could have thought it up a hundred years ago.

Real engineering is based on good science, but there is no good science here. Climate modeling is baby science — still crawling around in wet diapers. There is a huge difference between settled science, like the solar system, and baby science. Climate modeling has no track record of solid performance. That is why climate predictions have to be made for a hundred years from now, because that makes them impossible to disprove. Nobody is going to wait 100 years to find out. But the money has to be taxed now, to empower science frauds and hype-mongers who promise to save our hides in 2100. Give me your money now to save the earth in 2100!

“Global warming” is more Scientology than science. It is an act of pure imagination. The only thing climate models have in common with real science is the word “science.” All the climate prophets are playing on public ignorance. If you confuse Scientology with science, you can confuse climate modeling with real science.

The key is that the science establishment, like any power class, wants to control the media narrative. That is why our Galileos today are told to shut up by hype peddlers like James Hansen and John Holdren.

Political establishments haven’t changed since Galileo. They don’t care if they are defending theology or secular ideology; they just want more and more power. Obama didn’t appoint our new “science czar” to ensure honesty and integrity in the climate debate. On the contrary, this guy was appointed for political loyalty, exactly the reason why the pope appointed Galileo’s inquisitor.

The very idea of a science czar is Stalinist.

True science always respects the skeptics. Einstein disagreed profoundly with Nils Bohr about quantum mechanics, but can you imagine Albert Einstein demanding that Bohr be put on trial for his beliefs? Or vice versa? But that’s what James Hansen has been saying.

These people are totalitarians in spirit. But healthy science must stay open, because nature always comes up with big surprises — as Einstein found out about quantum mechanics. Skeptics are just as necessary to healthy science as passionate advocates; neither one can presume to know the truth before the evidence comes in. Look at Science or Nature magazine any week and you will find both confirmation and negation of leading-edge hypotheses. To close one’s mind prematurely is to attack science itself.

The only real sin in science is to apply totalitarian methods to punish free and open debate. That is a sure road to disaster. What’s alarming today is not hypothetical global warming, but a very real infiltration of Stalinist thinking into universities and research institutions.
Click to read the article and comments

Owning the expert...

This latest video from How the World Works is in direct response to a "so called expert that challenged him on several issues from his previous ones. It covers climate change, socialism, federalism, capitalism, the depression and a few more. It's 21 minutes long, but worth every minute of your time.
Rees

The Greatest Lie Ever Told...

Don't let the sound of Al Gore gurgling in the background distract you from enjoying the beautiful picture.

Rees

from the Telegraph
Christopher Booker
28 Mar 2009

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Click to read the rest of the article

Paint Your Black Car White and Help Save The Earth!

California wants to eliminate future production of those evil black cars. What about the Presidents Limousine when he comes to SoCal to go on the Tonight Show? Will the President decide to be a pacesetter and order the Presidential Limousine to be painted white? Why not? Then he could look like the Pope, even though he is the Messiah.

I guess it's a good thing that the White House is actually white.

What about black labs, Angus Cows, etc.?
Rees

Here is an excerpt from the:

Cool Cars Standards and Test Procedures
California Air Resources Board
Public Workshop
March 12, 2009

Cool paints was identified as an early action approach to reduce GHGsfrom motor vehicle air conditioners use.

Cool Cars Measure:

• Proposes to reduce CO2emissions by reducing interior temperatures of parked vehicles
• Reduced interior temperatures can reduce a/c capacity and likelihood of a/c use
• Smaller a/c or less operation results in less fuel used
• Less fuel used results in less vehicle CO2emissions

Obama Lies About Global Warming As The Cause of The North Dakota Flooding - It's Just More Fear Mongering To Advance His Agenda

Obama is perpetuating a lie in an effort to advance his Global Warming, oops, *Climate Change agenda!

*Due to that pesky worldwide COOLING trend that has taken place over the last 10 years, and the increasing thickness in the Artic Ice Sheets, the Global Warming extremists had to substitute the term 'Global Warming' with the term "Climate Change'.

It's just so embarrassing when Mother Nature won't cooperate with the 'Climate Change' extremists.
Rees

Obama cites North Dakota floods in call for climate change action:

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

If Obama actually wanted the truth (which he can't handle), all he needed to do was was to read his own Government generated report that states the following:

National Weather Service
Hydrologic Information Center
2009 National Hydrologic Assessment
Dated March 13, 2009

"Colder than normal temperatures this winter along with high river flows at the time of freeze-up have generated a thick ice cover which heightens the 'risk of ice jam flooding' on the Red River and its tributaries." In addition, widespread overland flooding is expected due to frozen drainage networks.

Obama could have tapped another valuable resource to gain some additional information about the North Dakota flooding. Yes, he could have actually taken the time to talk to the people that live there! Here are some comments from readers that live there and also some comments from readers that don't, but do understand the reality of Ice Jam Flooding, a reality that evades Obama.

From the The Forum of Fargo-Moorehead:

Kevin C.Bismarck, ND 03/24/2009 7:27 AM Hey Mr. President. ND and MN had record breaking COLD and SNOW this winter. The globe is not warming. Warming is when the temperature goes up. The gig is up. Global warming is a sham. You and your liberal pals look silier every day living in your little Wally World.

Stefany P.Waconia, MN 03/25/2009 7:59 AM Obama had to tie global warming into the flooding of the Red River. Never let a crisis go to waste, right? What someone needs to tell him is that the Red River flows north into Lake Winnipeg. When we have colder winters, such as this one, it flows into a frozen land that cannot absorb much water. Global warming would actually make it so it wouldn't flood, not vice-versa.

bob s.Tempe, AZ 03/24/2009 10:21 PM The flooding has nothing to do with global warming or the lack thereof. Obama should have been here when it was 30 below this winter. Both conditions are relatively "normal" for ND. The reason the flooding is a record level is mostly because of ND cooling!

And the President shamelessly uses a flood to promote his agenda that will, if enacted, greatly increase the cost of your energy use and deny the access to affordable energy to developing nations around the world. Such willful disregard for basic science is detestable - and I have dealt with floods at UND (back when the scare was "global cooling" - remember that?) so don't think I can't appreciate your current plight.

Barbara N.Eden Prairie, MN 03/24/2009 7:21 PM What a ridicules comment. Global warming has no effect on the flow of the red river. Cold temps up north block the flow of water. If there is global warming it will relieve flooding .

John B.Fargo, ND 03/24/2009 2:41 PM So, if global warming is real it would help the Red River Valley avoid floods. The ice build up on the rivers to the north would be lessened and this frozen ground problem would not exist. Also there would be no snow melt as there would be none. How does global warming make flooding worse???

Lori S.Moorhead, MN 03/24/2009 5:47 AM Where was our President when we had -40 degree weather? That must be part of this global warming thing too. What about Lake Superior nearly freezing solid this year? Oh yeah, part of global warming, I forgot. Let's send him that info as a reminder. Search the charts and you'll find we have always gone through seasons of time where it was cold several years and warm several years (hot drought years where even our river here nearly dried up). Hardly fodder for global warming - at least for thinking people.

GermanShepherd G.03/24/2009 8:20 AM Good grief, we just go through one of the coldest winters in a long time and our moron president is telling us to beware of global warming. I'd say Obama really is as dumb as he looks.
Click to go to the article

Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population ... to the Point of Extinction

from American Thinker

by Gregory Young

In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes.

It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means. If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat. It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself.

Click to read the rest of the article