Need to know????

Who is going to pay for the CO2 you and your life exhale?.. You

Taxing Carbon designed to fail](

Until there is an alternative fuel source, the main theory behind the “Cap and Trade” Tax scheme, is to price fuels, products and services out of your affordability range, to make it so unaffordable, you will have to choose between feeding your family or heating your home in winter. That is this bill’s idea of how to reduce emissions.

This is the point, draconian legislation is seriously being considered that stands a very significant chance of failing to meet any of it’s stated goals, the height of insanity.

Creating a tax on industry does not help reduce emissions; it is poor reasoning to think that it will. It makes industry just that much more expensive, and that cost is passed on to you.

Co-author of cap and trade bill doesn’t even know what’s in it

Waxman-Markey: A completely futile legislative exercise

To assess the climate impact of the Waxman-Markey restrictions, we first have to develop a baseline from which to apply the emissions reductions. In this case, we use the middle-of-the-road emissions scenario (A1B) as developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We then run MAGICC (using its default parameter settings) with the before and after emissions scenarios to produce the projections of future global temperature.
When we do this, here is what we get:UNITED STATES ONLY:
Year 2050
Warming from 1990 to 2050, A1B; 1.58ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2050, Waxman-Markey U.S.; 1.54ºC
Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.04ºC
Percent Warming “Saved”; 2.5%

Year 2100
Warming from 1990 to 2100, A1B; 2.96ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2100, Waxman-Markey U.S.; 2.85ºC
Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.11ºC
Percent Warming “Saved”; 3.7%

For the optimists in the crowd who think that the U.S. will not be acting alone, we also ran the case assuming that all the countries that agreed to Kyoto Protocol emissions targets would follow a similar emissions reduction course as the U.S.U.S. PLUS KYOTO-OBLIGATED NATIONS
Year 2050
Warming from 1990 to 2050, A1B; 1.58ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2050, Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 1.50ºC
Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 0.08ºC
Percent Warming “Saved”; 5.0%

Year 2100
Warming from 1990 to 2100, A1B; 2.96ºC
Warming from 1990 to 2100, Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 2.74ºC
Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey Kyoto; 0.22ºC
Percent Warming “Saved”; 7.4%

The bottom line here is that we are talking about global temperature savings on the order of one or two *tenths *of a degree by the end of the century even if the rest of the developed world does the same—values that are virtually meaningless when held against the total projected temperature rise.
Consequently, no matter how you slice it, the Waxman-Markey proposal is a completely futile legislative exercise, in terms of effect on global warming.

EPA Admits Cap-and-Trade Won’t Work

EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis. “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

Coldest day set for July 17, 2009

Record cold predicted for Friday

									  											   												The Capital Times 											 											 —  											7/16/2009 11:32 am 										
									If you have plans to visit a waterpark on Friday, the trip could be more chilling than thrilling.

Record low high temperatures are forecast for southern Wisconsin on Friday as a very cool Canadian air mass covers the region.
The high on Friday is only expected to be in the low 60s, which would be under the record coldest high temperature in Madison for July 17 of 67 degrees, set in 1900.

July 12, 2007 I had spot frost. Aug. 19-22 2007 I had killing frost aka hard freeze. We have had record lows and lower highs for several years now. Any experts have a clue when we also may start enjoying the global warming effect?

Gore can’t even catch a break in his own home town.

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn.

By Associated Press
7:59 AM CDT, July 21, 2009

                  NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Cool weather has broken a previous low temperature for July 21 in Nashville that was set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.

When the temperature at the National Weather Service station dipped to 58 degrees at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it wiped out the previous record low for the date of 60 degrees, which was set in 1877.

NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.

          Temperatures were cool, but did not break records at several Tennessee cities.

Knoxville dropped to 59 degrees Tuesday morning, Chattanooga had 60 degrees, Tri-Cities recorded 58 degrees and Memphis was 69 degrees.

**SOLAR MINIMUM VS. GLOBAL WARMING: ** From 2002 to 2008, decreasing solar irradiance has countered much anthropogenic warming of Earth’s surface.

That’s the conclusion of researchers Judith Lean (NRL) and David Rind (NASA/GISS), who have just published a new analysis of global temperatures in the Geophysical Research Letters.

Lean and Rind considered four drivers of climate change: solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ENSO (El Nino), and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The following plot shows how much each has contributed to the changing temperature of Earth’s surface since 1980:

         Volcanic aerosols are a source of cooling; ENSO and greenhouse                gases cause heating; the solar cycle can go either way. When added                together, these factors can account for 76% of the variance in Earth's                surface temperature over the past ~30 years, according to the analysis                of Lean and Rind.

         Several aspects of their model attract attention: "The warmest                year on record, 1998, coincides with the 'super-El Nino' of 1997-98,"                points out Lean. "The ESNO is capable of producing significant                spikes in the temperature record." Solar minimum has the opposite                effect: "A 0.1% decrease in the sun's irradiance has counteracted                some of the warming action of greenhouse gases from 2002 - 2008,"                she notes. "This is the reason for the well-known 'flat' temperature                trend of recent years."

         What's next? Ultimately, the authors say, temperatures will begin                rising again as greenhouse gases accumulate and solar activity resumes                with the coming of the next solar cycle. Of couse, the solar cycle                could be [out                of whack](; if solar minimum deepens and persists, no one is certain                what will happen. Lean and Rind reveal *their* predictions                for the future [here](

         **Reference:** Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009),                How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?,                *Geophys. Res. Lett., 36*, L15708

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal](

If a peer review fails in the woods…

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 29th September 2009 16:03 GMT

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

What went wrong?

The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

As the panel states, its duty is “assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.” But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment.

A small group was able to rewrite history.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade. ®

Leave it to a bloody Canadain to upset the apple cart!!:wink:

Scaring our children with lies.

“Please Help the World”, film from the opening ceremony of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Shown on December 7, 2009 at COP15.](


It’s A Climategate Christmas

Lord Monckton on Climategate(video)

                                                               Lord Christopher Monckton speaks at the second International Climate Conference, addressing the so called Climategate scandal and key players involved in what appears to be one of the biggest science scams of our time.

Busted again!

**Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

**Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

Does anyone care about truth anymore?:frowning:

"Does anyone care about truth anymore?"

No Michael. Nobody cares about the truth any more. There is no money in the truth. The truth doesn’t allow an attack against the free enterprise system. The truth doesn’t transfer billions of dollars to tin pot dictators around the world. The truth doesn’t get you invited to Al Bore’s cocktail parties. The truth doesn’t let you hob-knob with the Hollywood elites.

Sorry Michael. There is no Santa Claus either.:frowning:

I’m so bummed!:frowning:

French Revolution! Carbon tax ruled unconstitutional just two days before taking effect

This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 14 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $20). In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here]( (Google Translation). Lord Monckton was kind enough to assist me in deciphering the meaning of the ruling and writes:*In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (*loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.