More Global Warming Debate (loud groan)

More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Printable Version

+- DWA Forums (https://www.deepwaveanalytics.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Deep Wave Message Boards (https://www.deepwaveanalytics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.deepwaveanalytics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) (/showthread.php?tid=1971)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-07-2016

(06-07-2016, 03:19 PM)tuzo29 Wrote: It's great to worry about Big Brother, but I just don't think this is the issue that is preeminent on my list of things to worry about in that regard. Go get the FED dissolved. They have and will cause way more problems that a carbon tax would. Government is not evil, it's just extremely inefficient. As for your plot about CO2 in the atmosphere, let's look at a longer timescale. Here's a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere that shows the relative stability over the last 1000 years vs the last 100 years.

Something has clearly changed. Ignore the projections. My point is not the projection lines, but that we've broken out to the upside and there's no clear mechanism to cause it to stop going up. We stayed in the 250-300 ppm range for 900 years and now we are at 400. Is private sector going to fund basic research to investigate this? I don't think so. Is it worth researching? Probably not, if you are going to die in the next 50 years. We can start looking into it once the problem is clearer. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's what I'm hearing from the AGW skeptics. If the increase is due to some natural cause, what is it? There's one explanation I've heard. Humans burning stuff. I am open to others, but I haven't heard any, and to say that the increase is a tiny fraction of the total at this point is just not accurate unless the data in this chart is wrong.

Very reasonable questions and concerns based on the limited data that has been presented by the IPCC via ice cores. So, let's look more closely at the data and see if:

1. We have any way to accurately determine the age of the air that's trapped in ice. If so, how accurate is that method, and within a margin of error of how many years?
2. If CO2 at the poles is NORMALLY lower than CO2 in Hawaii -- should we even be comparing the two readings?
3. If the data is open to any degree of interpretation.
4. If ice core data agrees with, or contradicts, available data from other long-term sources.

In other words: Are ice core data, the science behind it, and the people interpreting the data so infallible and objective that we should base our children's futures on this? Or not? (emphasis mine, below):

Stomata are microscopic pores found in leaves and the stem epidermis of plants. They are used for gas exchange. The stomatal density in some C3 plants will vary inversely with the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Stomatal density can be empirically tested and calibrated to CO2 changes over the last 60 years in living plants. The advantage to the stomatal data is that the relationship of the Stomatal Index and atmospheric CO2 can be empirically demonstrated…

When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores…

Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.

Ice cores and GEOCARB provide continuous long-term records; while plant stomata records are discontinuous and limited to fossil stomata that can be accurately aged and calibrated to extant plant taxa. GEOCARB yields a very low frequency record, ice cores have better resolution and stomata can yield very high frequency data. Modern CO2 levels are unspectacular according to GEOCARB, unprecedented according to the ice cores and not anomalous according to plant stomata. So which method provides the most accurate reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2?

The problems with the ice core data are 1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and 2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.

The age of the layers of ice can be fairly easily and accurately determined. The age of the air trapped in the ice is not so easily or accurately determined. Currently the most common method for aging the air is through the use of “firn densification models” (FDM). Firn is more dense than snow; but less dense than ice. As the layers of snow and ice are buried, they are compressed into firn and then ice. The depth at which the pore space in the firn closes off and traps gas can vary greatly… So the delta between the age of the ice and the age of the air can vary from as little as 30 years to more than 2,000 years.

****

Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes…

[attachment=39917]

[attachment=39918]

So… The ice core data should be yielding lower CO2 levels than the Mauna Loa Observatory and the plant stomata.

*****

The current “paradigm” says that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~275ppmv to 388ppmv since the mid-1800’s as the result of fossil fuel combustion by humans. Increasing CO2 levels are supposedly warming the planet…

[attachment=39919]

However, if we use Moberg’s (2005) non-Hockey Stick reconstruction, the correlation between CO2 and temperature changes a bit…

[attachment=39920]

Moberg did a far better job in honoring the low frequency components of the climate signal. Reconstructions like these indicate a far more variable climate over the last 2,000 years than the “Hockey Sticks” do. Moberg also shows that the warm up from the Little Ice Age began in 1600, 260 years before CO2 levels started to rise.

As can be seen below, geologically consistent reconstructions like Moberg and Esper are in far better agreement with “direct” paleotemperature measurements, like Alley’s ice core reconstruction for Central Greenland…

[attachment=39921]

*****

CONCLUSIONS

-- Ice core data provide a low-frequency estimate of atmospheric CO2 variations of the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene. However, the ice cores seriously underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels.
-- GEOCARB shows that ice cores underestimate the long-term average Pleistocene CO2 level by 36ppmv.
-- Modern satellite data show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes.
-- Plant stomata data show that ice cores do not resolve past decadal and century scale CO2 variations that were of comparable amplitude and frequency to the rise since 1860.

Thus it is concluded that:

-- CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
-- The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
-- The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
-- The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
-- The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

My own commentary: Again, I am bothered by the fact that the data from the IPCC/NASA is not being presented honestly, evidenced by one simple fact: Mauna Loa CO2 readings are SUPPOSED to be higher than ice core CO2 readings at the poles. Why is that NOT disclosed to the public in these charts? Wouldn't it be far more honest to state that right off the bat? If I can't even trust the IPCC/NASA to honestly disclose a simple fact like that, what exactly can I trust them to do?

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - tuzo29 - 06-08-2016

(06-07-2016, 04:57 PM)AppleAl Wrote: The problem I have with this chart and other charts purporting to show long term climate trends is the assumption that the extrapolated historical data is an accurate reflection of reality at the time. I would guess that "ice core data" is derived based on multiple assumptions concerning rate of accumulation and methods of interpretation - leaving room for introduction of biases whether conscious or not. Also, is the modern data based on ice cores? If, as I suspect, it's based on measurements by modern instrumentation then can it properly be compared to estimations from ice cores?

I said ignore the projections. When you look at ppm it's an absolute measurement. If there's 400 ppm, it means that 0.04% of the air is CO2. The ice cores have air in them. (http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/) "Ice coring has been around since the 1950s. Ice cores have been drilled in ice sheets worldwide, but notably in Greenland[3] and Antarctica[4, 5]. High rates of snow accumulation provide excellent time resolution, and bubbles in the ice core preserve actual samples of the world’s ancient atmosphere[6]." They measure the proportion of CO2 in the air. This does not require a fancy model and calibration. Just take the air from the ice and run a chemical analysis.

It amazes me how skeptical the general public is about scientific processes. Most of them aren't nearly as complex or unreliable as people think. Despite popular belief scientists aren't nefarious and/or stupid (in general). They search for facts and the truth. It seems that this is where the major difficulty is. Believing scientists are searching for the truth and keeping tabs on each other along the way, so that the rest of us can take their word for what they find. It seems to me that when people see data that doesn't match their prior beliefs, they just disregard it. Like all those people who didn't believe Galileo.
(sarcastic aside: Really there is a secret global organization of scientists working on a taking over the world with a new international program to brainwash us all. Please go read 1984 for the details of how they are going to do it.)

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - tuzo29 - 06-08-2016

(06-07-2016, 07:46 PM)Pretzel Logic Wrote: 2. If CO2 at the poles is NORMALLY lower than CO2 in Hawaii -- should we even be comparing the two readings?

Yes, we should, and we should measure the variation today and take that into account. Your reference shows a chart that does just that. There's about a 5ppm variation across latitudes for CO2 concentration. Not nearly as large as the error bars on the historical data. Not significant.

Quote:4. If ice core data agrees with, or contradicts, available data from other long-term sources.

Sure. We have ice cores that take average air from some period of time (a few hundred to a few thousand years) and this shows that variation on that time scale was minimal over the last 800k years. The other two methods mentioned are either less accurate in measuring CO2 levels as they require a model and fitting as the CO2 isn't measured directly (stomata) or the time window that is being average over gets really long (100k years or more for GEOCARB). These are the reasons ice cores are used for understanding the relatively recent past (last 10k to 20k years). The 36 ppm number that is the discrepancy between GEOCARB and ice cores is actually confirmation that both methods are fairly good. If you want the average over 1000 years, look at ice cores. If you want the average over 100k years, look at GEOCARB and compare it to ice core data and take the mean. Doing that over the data window in the chart give us an estimate of about 260 ppm for CO2 levels in the last 200k years. I would want to see more that two data points from stomata that are both above and below the GEOCARB and ice core data to start to give it more credence. If it only reads above the two other more direct measures of historical CO2 levels, that starts to reduce it's validity and/or calibration process. I'm doing this analysis solo here, but I expect climate scientists have done a similar analysis. If there is stomata data out there that is more complete historically than what is in your reference, I'd like to see it.

So we are left with the following: historical levels of CO2 over the last 100k year is around 260 ppm +/- 30 ppm. The ice core location is maybe +5 ppm higher than Mauna Loa. Adding this all up, ice core and GEOCARB data suggests that CO2 levels were below 300 ppm on average in recent millenia. It probably varied around the average, but there were likely clear causes for the variations (volcanic activity, solar activity, etc.). Which of these known potential causes has led to the increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years? I really want a second option. I want to be able to drive and fly and not worry about it, but I just can't come up with an cause besides humans burning stuff. PLEASE suggest one. I am all ears. If you can't, then consider that we are the cause for the increased CO2. It's disagreeable, but there's not another viable option that I know of. I'm NOT saying CO2 levels never changed in the last 800k years. I'm saying that there were reasons for whatever changes occurred and they happened on a time scale shorter than a few hundred years. I don't know how large the variations were, but there's a big one happening now. Please give me a reason why it's not caused humans.

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - alx13 - 06-08-2016

(06-08-2016, 01:30 AM)tuzo29 Wrote: I said ignore the projections. When you look at ppm it's an absolute measurement. If there's 400 ppm, it means that 0.04% of the air is CO2. The ice cores have air in them. (http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/) "Ice coring has been around since the 1950s. Ice cores have been drilled in ice sheets worldwide, but notably in Greenland[3] and Antarctica[4, 5]. High rates of snow accumulation provide excellent time resolution, and bubbles in the ice core preserve actual samples of the world’s ancient atmosphere[6]." They measure the proportion of CO2 in the air. This does not require a fancy model and calibration. Just take the air from the ice and run a chemical analysis.

It amazes me how skeptical the general public is about scientific processes. Most of them aren't nearly as complex or unreliable as people think. Despite popular belief scientists aren't nefarious and/or stupid (in general). They search for facts and the truth. It seems that this is where the major difficulty is. Believing scientists are searching for the truth and keeping tabs on each other along the way, so that the rest of us can take their word for what they find. It seems to me that when people see data that doesn't match their prior beliefs, they just disregard it. Like all those people who didn't believe Galileo.
(sarcastic aside: Really there is a secret global organization of scientists working on a taking over the world with a new international program to brainwash us all. Please go read 1984 for the details of how they are going to do it.)

It's actually nice that you are a scientist and willing to debate with us. Thank you for that Smile_1

IMO, the model with CO2 emissions is flawed and the governments "selling" it just want more power and influence. Why? Simple math. The population increase is our Planet's biggest problem, and as a consequence ours too. Putting laws on CO2 emissions will not solve the problem when math comes into place. If you make a car consume 50% less CO2 sounds good in theory, but the fact that 3 cars will exist instead of one simply because more people will live on Earth puts the practice under question.

Why aren't the "save the Planet" crowd willing to acknowledge this? Why is no one willing to talk about the real threat to our Planet coming from the fact that we are expanding in an uncontrolled rate which is not sustainable? Because of PR. No one will like you if you say "people should have less babies". But if you say "people should pollute less" everyone will love you.

So forgive me for being skeptical but I don't buy the good intent of the "global warming" crowd. They focus on the smaller part of the problem just because the PR is better and the other subject is tabu. Dodgy

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-11-2016

(06-08-2016, 03:09 AM)tuzo29 Wrote: I'm NOT saying CO2 levels never changed in the last 800k years. I'm saying that there were reasons for whatever changes occurred and they happened on a time scale shorter than a few hundred years. I don't know how large the variations were, but there's a big one happening now. Please give me a reason why it's not caused humans.

Well, one possible reason is that we're still warming from the prior ice age, and there's a clear link in the data that shows that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises. So rising CO2 would be consummate with the current natural warming trend -- but the data suggests that warming causes increased CO2, not the other way around.

I think the main thing is, even if (for the sake of a mental exercise) we were to say that all current increased CO2 is caused by man, there is still no proven link that says "Increased atmospheric CO2 CAUSES increased temperature." As the old saying goes: correlation does not imply causation.

So there are two big holes in the "man-made climate change" argument: one is that CO2 increase seems to FOLLOW natural warming periods, two is that there is no proven link to increased CO2 CAUSING increased temperature.

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-11-2016

(06-08-2016, 12:32 PM)alx13 Wrote: It's actually nice that you are a scientist and willing to debate with us. Thank you for that

IMO, the model with CO2 emissions is flawed and the governments "selling" it just want more power and influence. Why? Simple math. The population increase is our Planet's biggest problem, and as a consequence ours too. Putting laws on CO2 emissions will not solve the problem when math comes into place. If you make a car consume 50% less CO2 sounds good in theory, but the fact that 3 cars will exist instead of one simply because more people will live on Earth puts the practice under question.

Why aren't the "save the Planet" crowd willing to acknowledge this? Why is no one willing to talk about the real threat to our Planet coming from the fact that we are expanding in an uncontrolled rate which is not sustainable? Because of PR. No one will like you if you say "people should have less babies". But if you say "people should pollute less" everyone will love you.

So forgive me for being skeptical but I don't buy the good intent of the "global warming" crowd. They focus on the smaller part of the problem just because the PR is better and the other subject is tabu.

I believe that this is exactly the agenda behind SOME of the global warming crowd.

Do keep in mind that the earth is far from being overpopulated yet, though. Urban man occupies only 3% of the landmass. If we took EVERYONE in the world and stuck them in one place, they could comfortably occupy an area that was only about the size of Texas.

Also keep in mind that part of the reason we've been able to grow the population even this much is BECAUSE of the current warming period. The rise and fall of civilizations is quite clearly linked to changing climates -- warm periods = prosperity and plentiful food/resources; cold periods = contraction of resources and population. We were fortunate enough to be born into a prosperous climate period. But it won't last forever, despite what the AGP crowd is afraid of. (In a way, they're afraid of earth remaining hospitable to man's prosperity for longer than it otherwise might on its own!)

When we shift back to a cold period (which, according to history, we absolutely will at some point -- sometimes this is triggered by sudden geological activity in the form of multiple ongoing volcanic eruptions; which then block the sun from warming the planet), the population will be forced to contract -- probably traumatically so, unfortunately.

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-11-2016

(06-11-2016, 07:52 PM)Pretzel Logic Wrote: When we shift back to a cold period (which, according to history, we absolutely will at some point -- sometimes this is triggered by sudden geological activity in the form of multiple ongoing volcanic eruptions; which then block the sun from warming the planet), the population will be forced to contract -- probably traumatically so, unfortunately.

He says, as he remembers that he lives on the literal side of the world's largest dormant volcano... Laugh

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-11-2016

Just to illustrate a point through satire, here's something else for people to worry about. Luckily, it can't be linked to man in any way, shape, or form -- but it does illustrate that the earth routinely undergoes MASSIVE changes, most of which we don't understand:

The end of the world as we know it could come in any number of ways, depending on who you ask. Some people believe global cataclysm will occur when Earth's magnetic poles reverse. When north goes south, they say, the continents will lurch in one direction or the other, triggering massive earthquakes, rapid climate change and species extinctions.

The geologic record shows that hundreds of pole reversals have occurred throughout Earth's history; they happen when patches of iron atoms in Earth's liquid outer core become reverse-aligned, like tiny magnets oriented in the opposite direction from those around them. When the reversed patches grow to the point that they dominate the rest of the core, Earth's overall magnetic field flips. The last reversal happened 780,000 years ago during the Stone Age, and indeed there's evidence to suggest the planet may be in the early stages of a pole reversal right now.

The geomagnetic field is currently weakening, possibly because of a growing patch of reverse-alignment in the liquid core deep beneath Brazil and the South Atlantic. According to Tarduno, the strength of Earth's magnetic field "has been decreasing for at least 160 years at an alarming rate, leading some to speculate that we are heading toward a reversal."

http://www.livescience.com/18426-earth-magnetic-poles-flip.html

Perhaps government regulation and control of magnets is in order? After all, we can't have all these people running around pointing magnets in any random direction! Who knows, that might, in some infinitesimal way, contribute to hastening the reversal of the poles!

Consider this: If each random magnet hastens the pole reversal by just .0000000000001 seconds, then we might lose... let's see here... carry the 5... like 8 seconds of time! Yet Congress remains silent on this looming catastrophe, and magnets are still sold and distributed freely across the globe.

Sure, regulation of all privately-owned magnets is a bit extreme -- but isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Surprise

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 06-11-2016

(06-08-2016, 03:09 AM)tuzo29 Wrote: Yes, we should, and we should measure the variation today and take that into account. Your reference shows a chart that does just that. There's about a 5ppm variation across latitudes for CO2 concentration. Not nearly as large as the error bars on the historical data. Not significant.

When you consider that all by itself, the natural variation across latitudes accounts for 7-10% of the trumpeted "rise" in CO2 on the IPCC/NASA charts, that's significant enough to consider it completely dishonest for the IPCC to "lie by omission" in that regard.

Also, I realize the next argument can be taken as straw man, but part of the point of the latest research indicating that "volcanoes emit WAY more CO2 than we keep thinking," is that it has to at least be considered that Mauna Loa's CO2 station sits on the side of the world's most active volcano. That volcano DRASTICALLY impacts the air quality all the way over here on Maui -- both visibly and invisibly -- and causes my wife (and thousands of other people on the island) to have severe asthma flare-ups. But the "experts" are going to tell me that it has "no impact" on the measuring station that sits right next to it. Common sense calls BS on that.

They even state on their website that the volcano has no impact on CO2 readings -- but their proof uses the now-outdated (and severely underestimated) old model of volcanic CO2 emissions. Shows how much the "experts" know, when a layman is more abreast of the latest science than they are.

Incidentally, Mauna Loa's emissions have been increasing for at least the past decade.

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Pretzel Logic - 03-22-2017

Just stumbled upon this video addressing the fallacy of the "97% of scientists agree..." figure we hear bandied about so often:

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - GeoFib - 02-28-2018

Interesting paper on the psychology behind the human-induced
climate change, i.e., global warming "groupthink". A long read, but quite interesting history of the climate change movement.

"The late Professor Irving Janis analysed what happens when people get caught up in what he termed ‘groupthink’, a pattern of collective psychological behaviour with three distinctive features, that we can characterise as rules.
• A group of people come to share a particular view or belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence.
• This leads them to insist that their belief is shared by a ‘consensus’ of all rightminded
opinion.
• Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it."

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Shiver Metimbers - 05-20-2019

(06-06-2016, 09:36 PM)Pretzel Logic Wrote: I wanted to assure everyone that I already have our team working to discredit this recent discovery (below) as a bogus anomaly, put forth by the blue paint companies in order to forestall the regulations that will inevitably be coming, after our research into the amazing redness of fire trucks goes public.

Many in our team do not believe this is a "real" fire truck, since it clearly has "Indianapolis Colts" painted on the side, which means it's probably used to hose down rabid fans, not to put out fires. After all, we now have more than 100,000 photos of red fire trucks, and a strong consensus that the redness of fire trucks is both significant and impressive.

Another theory we're going to float to the media is that this truck is actually used to clean out horse stables, not to put out fires (note it has "Go Horse" printed near the bottom, exactly the type of thing one would shout if they were about to point a high-pressure hose into a horse stable! Coincidence? Unlikely.). Additionally, the scientist who released this photo has, in the past, received funding from "Big Paint."

OMG, literally out of my chair laughing!!! Laugh

I can hardly type because I'm so convulsed with laughter! Thanks and rep!

Edit: I was sad that the picture didn't show up in the quote from Pretzel Logic. So here it is again in all its glorious Blueness:
[Image: attachment.php?aid=39879]

RE: More Global Warming Debate (loud groan) - Shiver Metimbers - 05-20-2019

Sadly, all the funny pictures and the links are no longer visible, but this is a post from 2009 that I wrote in response to the drumbeat of AGW. I'd put them back if I could. I think the post is as relevaant today as it was 10 years ago... alas, nothing has changed. The MSM and IPCC are still beating the same drum, and the re-election of the Australian Government that is opposed to the drumbeat of carbon taxes etc. was accomplished by only the slimmest of margins.

The links are still active on the original Seeking Alpha post.

Not that I think this particular post did much, but Thank God that Cap-n-Trade was finally defeated in Congress. If I did anything in my life to help achieve that result, I will die happy and fulfilled. Smile_1

I hope you find it as fun and illuminating as I did when I wrote it. Laugh

Marketplace
Seeking Alpha
SUBSCRIBE

Portfolio
People
News
Analysis

Sign in / Join Now
Thomas LaCour
Thomas LaCour's Blog
Send Message
Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.
THERE IS NO GOD BUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALGORE IS HIS PROFIT
Oct. 27, 2009 11:23 AM ET|Includes: Aflac Incorporated (AFL), AQNT, GE, GS, MSFT

TEXT of the Copenhagen Treaty

THERE IS NO GOD BUT GLOBAL WARMING, AND ALGORE IS HIS PROPHET

“The earth has a fever! And the fever is rising…[Something] basic is wrong. WE are what is wrong…If we continue at the present rate, virtually all the species of fish in the ocean will be extinct in the next 50 years…sea-level increases of 20 feet or more worldwide…We have seen the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis like Katrina. Imagine 100 or 200 million!” – Al Gore

So the fanatical haters of humans and industry would have us believe: coal-fired power plants, our barbecue pits, and our very breath have brought us to the Brink of Disaster. Poor Gaia, prostrate Mother Earth, ravaged by a cancer called humanity! Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by burning ex-plants, whether renewable wood or “fossil” fuels, is causing temperatures to rise. Too many people on the planet! Their breath emits more of the pollutant CO2! Their vast herds of cows and other food animals fart potent clouds of methane into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (NYSE:GG) trap incoming solar heat to the earth, temperatures rise, Catastrophe Looms: rising temperatures beget rising oceans that release yet more GG that traps more heat, and voilá! runaway Global Warming. We get cooked. And drowned. The planet dies.

Harass your Senator with calls, emails, letters. Sign a petition to stop Congress from crippling us based on falsified alarmism: here (1.8k signatures), here (70k signatures), here (179k signatures).

If you meet the qualifications (degree in science), sign this high-impact Global Warming Petition and send it in. Congress MUST be stopped from enacting Cap-n-Trade, the EPA must be stopped from its contemplated regulation of Greenhouse Gases, and Obama's Copenhagen Treaty must not be ratified by the Senate.

“Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination.” – Al Gore

Cattle (1.5 billion worldwide) are “responsible for 18% of “human-related” greenhouse gas (hrGG) emissions, more than all transportation combined, according to Livestock’s Long Shadow, a 2006 “report” from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Actually, it is 4% of hrGG, but various formulae transform cow flatulence and manure into a threat greater than jets and the internal combustion engine. And those ruminants produce 64% of “human-related” ammonia, which – get this – “contributes significantly to acid rain.”

Well. Ammonia is a base. It reduces acidity, acts to neutralize acid, for those who missed high school chemistry. And, how strange that the enormous population of cows, buffalo and bison (500 million – 1 billion) in the 1800’s didn’t give us Acidified Oven Earth…

“The planet has a FEVER! If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action!” – Al Gore

The European Union (NYSEARCA:EU) is hot to take action! They are pursuing a new Emissions Trading Scheme Item for Cow Farts.

At $175 per cow, it matches that under consideration by the EPA here. Dairy and beef operators would face bankruptcy if these regulations go into effect, and prices will have to increase to keep solvent. Add the effect of increased oil prices baked into Carbon Tax legislation, and we will pay even more: $6 per pound MORE for meat, more for milk (get ready for $8/gal), butter etc., and pay EXTRA in other ways to fund the offsets the industries will surely get Congress to pass.

All farmers would be affected: “Crop production emits nitrous oxide from fertilizer and methane from rice production, and fields that emit 100 tons of carbon would also be subject to permitting requirements as well. Any Florida farm with 500 acres of corn, 250 acres of soybeans, 350 acres of potatoes or only 35 acres of rice would be forced to obtain Clean Air Act permits.” And forced to buy Carbon Credits. And pay Goldman-Sachs hefty brokerage fees to trade them. And pass the costs along to us. Bread at $9 a loaf. Low-cost, mass-produced American beer at $17 per sixpack.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” – Al Gore

The outrageous exaggerations and outright lies in his despicable propaganda "An Inconvenient Truth" are ubiquitous. Congress and the EPA are enacting laws based on that prairie pizza. Schoolchildren across the world BELIEVE. They have been successfully indoctrinated and some are already VOTING. In England, the High Court ruled that 9 errors were so serious that the movie could no longer be shown in schools without an accompanying presentation of its fallacies. The Court ruled that

"if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

The major exaggerations and lies are rebutted, soundly, scientifically, in Lord Monckton's 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie. And yet the MSM continues to spout the Religionist lies. Algore was awarded an Emmy, Oscars, and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the infamous IPCC) for this pack of poop. Liberals, Statists and One-Worlders are very keen to continue the push toward UN control of nations by Treaties promising to fight "Climate Change." At the Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference on Friday 10/23/09, Monckton noted that:

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it."

The tactics and goals of Islamofascist Jihad and the Global Warming Pushers mesh perfectly. Read Have we no Hannan, no Wilders?. Note the warnings of Geert Wilders:

It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!

President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.

The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?

Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.

As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society" - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.

As Algore has become the Prophet of the GW Religion, the UN has become its Temple and repository of the Sacred Writings. The UN is the premier Institutional peddlar of the Global Warming Scam through its creature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chartered in 1988 under UN Resolution A/RES/43/53 entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.” The resolution states in plain doublespeak the UN’s “concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,” and directs the IPCC to “provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies.”

In plain English, the UN is already sure that Global Warming is occurring, that its consequences will be bad, and charges the IPCC to document global warming, predict its timing and consequences, and recommend what the UN should tell governments to do to stop it.

The IPCC has issued four “Assessment Reports” (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) with increasingly alarmist tones that promote the following notions:

1 The climate as of now (or that of 1900) is optimal. We must not let it change. We can stop it changing.

2 The planet is warming. Global Warming = Climate Change.

3 The warming is wholly or mainly anthropogenic (caused by Man).

4 Man and his activities emit greenhouse gases (GG) that cause the warming, the worst being carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, which turns into CO2 over time in the air.

5 If we do not reduce CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise past the “tipping point” and runaway self-reinforcing Global Warming will occur.

6 Observed temperature and sea-level increases, and glacier / polar ice decreases, indicate that we are at or near the “tipping point.”

7 Runaway Global Warming will result in:

a massive, killing air temperature increases (5–20 ºC)

b massive, fish-killing sea temperature increases

c flooding, tidal waves, 20-ft (Algore) or 2-ft (NASDAQ:IPCC) rises in sea level

8 Life – plant, animal, human – will suffer horribly, die out to a great extent, and the planet will essentially be killed

9 Valiant, forward-thinking and Earth-friendly Ecowarriors can best fight hrGG emissions by instituting Carbon Taxes. (“Taxes” being unpopular, most countries use Carbon Reduction Plan, Cap-and-Trade, or other PC terms).

10 Those who do not join #9 to stop #2–8 above will hasten the day #8 arrives and deserve any mistreatment and will go straight to HELL. Convert, or die.

The Global Warming Religionists claim that the “science is settled.” Debate is pointless, “there is a scientific consensus.” Those who raise questions or present opposing evidence are publicly hounded, ridiculed, blacklisted. Scientists such as Dr. Alan Carlin, an EPA science analyst, are being stifled. He was told by his superior at the EPA in March 2009 to stop all work verifying or questioning IPCC reports. An email was sent to him:

The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

The Administration has suppressed Carlin’s report, banned him from writing or speaking about climate change, told him to forget about attending any meetings that addressed his main job function—climate change—and gave him a new assignment: updating a grants database.

As a Ph.D. chemist, I know damn well that Science is not Law, and terms like “consensus” and “settled” are PC doublespeak, not scientific terminology. As a historian, when I hear “that person is out of the mainstream,” I think of Galileo. I think of Alfred Wegener, ridiculed by the “scientific community” of the early 20th century for his theory of continental drift, and who died disgraced. The theory was later realized to be sound, and is now taught in high school as Plate Tectonics.

The only thing that counts in science is EVIDENCE, and it better be verifiable and reproducible. If a theory or hypothesis is found unable to account for certain facts, it is WRONG. If it does fit all the facts currently known, but makes predictions that turn out to be false, it is WRONG. And even where the theory fits the facts, and makes a few predictions that are verified, it is still not proved. Not ever. It will always remain theory, a working hypothesis, and subject to being disproved if new facts come into evidence.

And so, with respect to Global Warming and the Religion preached by Algore and sanctified in the United Nations, does the theory fit the facts? Should we cripple our economies to stop Climate Change, especially since China, India, Russia and others will not go along? Is it even within Man’s reach to guide the climate of a planet, or is that some hefty hubris?

Most of the following information was known when the IPCC published AR4 in 2007, and all of it was known when the U.S. Congress passed its Climate Change bill. All of it and more is known to the delegates to the Copenhagen Conference in this coming December. The science is flawed, in some cases falsified, and in all cases evidence is insufficient to pursue Climate Change Legislation. But the push is on, harder than ever.

What everyone agrees on: not much. Temperature measurements showed a net global increase of ~0.8 ºC from 1898–1998 (land-sea surface temps), with a 0.4 ºC (land-sea surface) to 0.6 °C rise (satellite) from 1980–1998. From 1998–2009 global temperatures dropped below the 1980 mean (satellite). The year 2009 has not been one of the warmer on record across the world. And measured CO2levels are increasing. Anything else? No. Are surface temperature measurements reliable? How about sea-level changes? Long-term temperature forecast? No.

Pro-Global Warming Graph using only surface temp measurements

Satellite Temperature Measurements (no satellite measurements before 1979)

Carlin’s report discusses six developments that render the IPCC AR4 report suspect, and notes that these are but a few of the new developments:

1. The 1998–2009 rapid cooling even though hrGG levels increased and emissions accelerated, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has now turned negative (meaning lower temperatures to come for ~30 years);

2. Consensus on hurricanes changed from supporting the idea that GW is causing more frequent and intense storms to neutral: GW has no effect;

3. New results indicate no evidence for, and some evidence against, the operation of processes that would cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice;

4. The amount of actual hrGG has far undercut IPCC assumptions;

5. A new 2009 paper disproves the critical IPCC assumption concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor, and shows the feedback is actually negative;

6. A new 2009 paper (Scafetta and West) finds the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures, and that solar changes could account for 68% of the increase.

Relevant excerpts from the literature that debunk the IPCC position on the three main points: Temperature Changes, Greenhouse Gases as a Cause of Warming, and Sea-level Rises. Much more information is available from downloadable .pdf full articles.

1. Temperature Changes

Global Warming: A Classical Case of Alarmism

This is a Guest Post by Dr David Evans

The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu
(2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009).

There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.

The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that. And there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, despite human emissions of carbon dioxide. And there has been no warming since 2001, despite record human emissions of carbon dioxide.

There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence. Although the models contain some well-established science, they also contain a myriad of implicit and explicit assumptions, guesses, and gross approximations—mistakes in any of which can invalidate the model outputs.

The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.

Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot). The alarmists keep very quiet about the missing hotspot.

No one knows for sure what caused the little ice age or for how many more centuries the slow warming trend will continue. It has been warmer than the present for much of the ten thousand years since the last big ice age: it was a little warmer for a few centuries in the medieval warm period around 1100 (when Greenland was settled for grazing) and also during the Roman-Climate Optimum at the time of the Roman Empire (when grapes grew in Scotland), and at least 1°C warmer for much of the Holocene Climate Optimum (four to eight thousand years ago).

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Cause for Warming

From Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

Greenhouse warming is distinguishable from other forcings
hPa - Left hand side
km - Right hand side

Image

Zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999), from two natural causes, three anthropogenic causes and one combined cause, simulated by the UN’s PCM model. The “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming is visible in © and (f). (IPCC, 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).

The UN’s diagram shows the pattern of zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999, in °C per century from six causes –

(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;
(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
© anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.

Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960's and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record –

No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality
hPa - Left hand side
km - Right hand side
Image

–0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3 +0.4 +0.5 +0.6 ºC
No “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” appears in the record of real-world temperature observations. Source: HadAT2 radiosonde observations, from CCSP (2006), p. 116, fig. 5.7E.

The contrast between the five computer models’ predicted signature of greenhouse warming and the Hadley Centre’s plot of observed decadal rates of change in temperature could not be starker. This astonishing result is explicitly confirmed by the UN’s 2007 assessment report, which describes the near-total absence of its own predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the observed temperature record, but apparently without appreciating its significance –

3. Sea-level Rises

From an interview with Dr. Nils Axel Morner,

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.

He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6, 2007 for EIR.

EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?

Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics. So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully.

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!

I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it’s not the first thing.

WHO BENEFITS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION?

Follow the money.

Algore
(click on link for full story)
From Media Ignore Al Gore's Financial Ties to Global Warming ...
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 2, 2007

As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout):

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee:

[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.

Isn’t that special?

Yet, it is not clear that Gore’s money is going to purchase carbon offsets at all. Riehl reported:

Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC (now MSFT property) - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.

Putting this in perspective, for years the left and their media minions have posited that George W. Bush started war with Iraq to benefit the company Vice President Dick Cheney used to run, Halliburton, as well as Bush’s oil tycoon friends. In fact, there have been times when you couldn’t swing a dead cat in any pressroom in this nation without hitting a reporter working on such a story.

Yet, as the former Vice President continues to plug global warming as a coming crisis in need of immediate attention, the same media completely ignore his obvious financial conflicts of interest.

STAND AND DELIVER.

YOUR PORTFOLIO, YOUR LIBERTY TO HAVE A PORTFOLIO, OR YOUR LIFE.
Point out what's happening, point out paths to solutions, or "live with it." Or maybe not.

Disclosure - no positions in companies or stocks mentioned

Like this post
Top Authors|
RSS Feeds|
Sitemap|
About Us|
Feedback|
Contact Us
Terms of Use|
Privacy|
Market Data Disclaimer|
© 2019 Seeking Alpha