How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Scott Free]

So lets see why GW is a proto-science shall we?

- The field is made of believers not critical and creative researches. (As characterized by their insistence on forming models to correlated data and getting rid of nonbelievers)

- GW has a huge commercial lobby and backing from political interests (funding and outright support).

- It is supported by correlated data and models that do not work - models that do not account for much of the effect.

- GW appeals to authority and has an ethos which imperils careers of scientist that are sceptical of it.

- It has no disciplinary background of its own but picks and chooses from other sciences as needed.

- GW does not take into account long term global trends and supposes imaginary circumstances. It lacks even a basic understanding of long term weather patterns (admittedly that can't be helped, but still... there it is)

- It isn't interested in discovering laws and can't make predictions; thus it's agenda is clearly political not scientific.

- GW is stagnant and not looking for other solutions. It is closed in on itself and seeks to conform the data to itself not the other way around (as would be proper).

There is more but this is a good enough proof IMO, for the purposes here, to demonstrate GW is a myth not a science.

Note: I am making broad generalizations here. I am sure there are good men and women working on this problem. I only hope one day their voices will be heard. I also hope they don't lose their jobs or funding if they decide to speak up.

I am also willing to concede carbon might play a larger role than is evidenced but it will take a real scientific inquiry to establish such.

 

[Walter]

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

SHUNNED: Naturalist David Bellamy

Wednesday November 5,2008

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.
Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.
Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.


The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.
At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.
I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest­ruc­tion of trop­ical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.
That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

INTERVIEW BY HELEN DOWD

 

[Walter]

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]".
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?
In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline.


Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored - Michael Duffy

 

[Walter]

Warmest October ever ...Not!

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, November 17, 2008
Last week, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) -- one of four agencies responsible for monitoring the global temperatures used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- released its statistics for October. According to the GISS figures, last month was the warmest October on record around the world.
This struck some observers as odd. There had been no reports of autumn heat waves in the international press and there is almost always blanket coverage of any unusually warm weather since it fits into the widespread media bias that climate catastrophe lies just ahead.
In fact, quite the opposite had occurred; there had been plenty of stories about unseasonably cool weather. London had experienced its first October snow in 70 years. Chicago and the Great Plains states had broken several lowest-temperature records, some of which had stood for 120 years. Tibet had broken snowfall records. Glaciers in Alaska, the Alps and New Zealand had begun advancing.
Moreover, sea ice expanded so rapidly it covered 30% more of the Arctic than at the end of October, 2007. (Of course, you saw few stories about that, too, since interest in the Arctic ice cover is reserved for when it's melting.)
So the GISS claim that October was the warmest ever seemed counterintuitive, to say the least.
Thanks, though, to Steve McIntyre, the Toronto computer analyst who maintains the blog climateaudit.org, and Anthony Watts, the American meteorologist who runs wattsupwiththat.com, we did not have to wait long to find out the cause of the GISS's startling statistics: Data-entry error.
This October wasn't the warmest October ever, it was only the 70th-warmest in the past 114 years -- that is, in the bottom half of all Octobers, not at the top of the list. So why the massive discrepancy between the published GISS numbers and the correct ones?
Um, some guy -- not at Goddard, a GISS spokesman was quick to point out
No one seemed to think a one-month jump of nearly a full degree warranted a double-check
as he toed the ground and gazed downward sheepishly -- had supplied the NASA branch with September figures for much of the globe, rather than October ones. September being typically a much warmer month than October (at least in the Northern Hemisphere), when the September temps had been entered into the October report they produced--heh, heh -- an unprecedented spike upwards in last month's temperature.
Yeah, no kidding, like when Santa's bathroom scale readings are inadvertently entered into Paris Hilton's weight diary and they produce an unprecedented upward tonnage.
Some in the blogosphere have charged that GISS's actions were deliberate; that the institute lied to cover up the fact that through most of 2008 global temperatures have been on a downward plunge. Since that's bad news for a group that has been at the forefront of promoting climate change hysteria, GISS manipulated the data to support its campaign.
Frankly, I don't think it's that nefarious. I believe this was simply a case of garbage in, garbage out. Still, I think a bigger problem -- unscientific bias at GISS and elsewhere in the global warming community -- has been exposed by this incident.
September figures from scores of weather stations around the world seem merely to have been copied into the GISS October database. Inexplicably, temperatures from Ethiopia, Kenya, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, most of Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Malaysia, the Philippines, Finland, the U. K., Ireland and elsewhere seem to have been incorrectly duplicated.
The problem isn't that this mistake occurred, but rather that no one at Goddard seemed to think a one-month temperature jump of nearly a full degree worldwide warranted a double-check. The keepers of one of the UN's four primary temperature records are sure the globe is warming dangerously -- so sure it never even occurred to them to check why or how October's figures were so anomalous.
It took bloggers using little more than desktop PCs and Internet connections only a few hours to find the error. The difference is: they were prepared to look. Their minds were not so clouded by bias in favour of the warming theory that they have stopped asking obvious questions.
Scientists and activists who support the warming theory often insist the science is settled. This incident proves it is settled -- in their own minds. For too many, scientific inquiry has ceased.

 

[givpeaceachance]

It's always great when we get conflicting reports!?

This whole global warming thing is starting to lose it's credibility for me. On one hand, I still think it's important to try to conserve and recycle and be careful but I don't trust the people/organizations behind it. I certainly don't trust the scientific community anymore. They truly seem to be exorbitantly irresponsible with the power they possess and they've proven time and time again to be wrong with great expenses to the public.

If the gov really wanted to make a difference in global warming, they wouldn't be considering financially helping the american auto industry. Talk about not letting dead dogs lie!

 

[Walter]

Cold snap fails to cool protagonists of global warming




John Stapleton | November 29, 2008

Article from: The Australian
EUROPE is shivering through an extreme cold snap. One of the coldest winters in the US in more than 100 years is toppling meteorological records by the dozen, and the Arctic ice is expanding. Even Australia has been experiencing unseasonable snow.
But the stories about global warming have not stopped, not for a second.
In May last year, The Sydney Morning Herald breathlessly reported that climate change had reduced the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, claiming that as a result global warming would accelerate even faster than previously thought.
The story was picked up and repeated in a number of different journals around the region.
But this week the CSIRO suggested the exact opposite. "The new study suggests that Southern Ocean currents, and therefore the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, have not changed in recent decades," it said. This time the story got no coverage in the SMH, and was run on the ABC's website as evidence the Southern Ocean was adapting to climate change.
CSIRO oceanographer Stuart Rintoul, a co-author of the study, said it did not disprove global warming and he did not believe its lack of an alarmist tone was responsible for the poor coverage.
But the story is being pointed out as an example of media bias on global warming. Critics argue that the ABC and the Fairfax media are the worst offenders.
ABC board member Keith Windschuttle said yesterday the national broadcaster was in breach of its charter to provide a diversity of views. "The ABC and the Fairfax press rarely provide an opportunity for global warming sceptics to put their view," Mr Windschuttle said. "The science is not settled.
"We are seeing an increasing number of people with impeccable scientific backgrounds questioning part or whole of the story. I don't believe the ABC has been reflecting the genuine diversity of the debate. Under its own act, the ABC is required to produce a diversity of views."
Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics, said there was no doubt Windschuttle was correct.
"With very few exceptions, press reporters commenting on global warming are either ignorant of the science matters involved, or wilfully determined to propagate warming hysteria because that fits their personal world view, or are under editorial direction to focus the story around the alarmist headline grab -- and often all three," Professor Carter said.
National Climate Centre former head William Kininmonth said coverage of global warming had been hysterical and was getting worse, with a large public relations effort inundating the media with information from the alarmist side.

 

[Tonington]

More fun loving short term (read...noise?) stats for those who like that sort of thing.
How about the past week?
HAMweather Climate Center - Record Events for The Past Week - Continental US View

How about the past two days?
HAMweather Climate Center - Record Events for The Past 2 Days - Continental US View

Hmmm...warm records everywhere, and outnumbering cold records...in December!

:roll:

 

[JLM]

I guess the question is Is this "global warming" just a natural temporary trend or is it a man made permanent trend unless man changes his ways? I rather suspect the former but think we should act as if it were the latter, as in doing so we improve things for ourselves anyway.

 

[scratch]

JLM,

I tend to agree with the latter as well.

rgs,
scratch

 

[Mongul]

However, if its a question concerning the avaliability of fuel, science is working on it.

Though i can understand your rationale, if GW is not man-made then there is no real purpose for government mandated regulation of carbon emissions, if we do run low on oil, then neccessity would provide us with alternative fuels/energy sources.

 

[Tonington]

However, if its a question concerning the avaliability of fuel, science is working on it.

Though i can understand your rationale, if GW is not man-made then there is no real purpose for government mandated regulation of carbon emissions, if we do run low on oil, then neccessity would provide us with alternative fuels/energy sources.

Even if Tyndall's experiments were wrong, that wouldn't mean there is no purpose for regulation of carbon emissions.

What do you know about ocean acidification? What do you know of aragonite? There's plenty of reasons besides the fact that it's vibro-rotational molecular state of excitement traps heat...

 

[Mongul]

Even if Tyndall's experiments were wrong, that wouldn't mean there is no purpose for regulation of carbon emissions.

What do you know about ocean acidification? What do you know of aragonite? There's plenty of reasons besides the fact that it's vibro-rotational molecular state of excitement traps heat...

have scientists managed to calculate the amount of PH shift in oceans? Have they accounted for possible substrates that may bind to the carbonic acid rendering it PH neutral? It would also be interesting to see which aquatic species survive in a relatively low PH environment, perhaps we would see a (relatively) quick evolutionary adaptation by marine animals.

 

[Tonington]

have scientists managed to calculate the amount of PH shift in oceans? Have they accounted for possible substrates that may bind to the carbonic acid rendering it PH neutral? It would also be interesting to see which aquatic species survive in a relatively low PH environment, perhaps we would see a (relatively) quick evolutionary adaptation by marine animals.

Yes, they have. And they have been able to project the changes. The waters of Antarctica have been projected to be free of aragonite by 2050. By 2100 that situtation has moved into the Southern ocean.

They haven't accounted for everything of course. In fact, in some areas, the rate appears to be 10 times faster than previous projections.
peopleandplanet.net > coasts and oceans > newsfile > ocean acid levels rising with alarming speed

A relatively low pH environment will wipe out most of the life in the ocean. They've evolved in an alkaline environment. The physiology of aquatic animals does not do well in low pH. The blood of teleosts for instance would lose it's ability to transport oxygen.

 

[Mongul]

Yes, they have. And they have been able to project the changes. The waters of Antarctica have been projected to be free of aragonite by 2050. By 2100 that situtation has moved into the Southern ocean.

They haven't accounted for everything of course. In fact, in some areas, the rate appears to be 10 times faster than previous projections.
peopleandplanet.net > coasts and oceans > newsfile > ocean acid levels rising with alarming speed

A relatively low pH environment will wipe out most of the life in the ocean. They've evolved in an alkaline environment. The physiology of aquatic animals does not do well in low pH. The blood of teleosts for instance would lose it's ability to transport oxygen.

i doubt it would wipe out the majority of aquatic species in oceans. I agree that certain species would certainly be more susceptible to the acidification but we know far to little to gauge the potential consequences of the PH change to really make any definite predictions. Is there a predicted value of PH in the near or far future?

Also, a high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should lead to an algae bloom and would regulate the amount of CO2 by converting it into O2. Perhaps we need to increase Algae stocks?

 

[Tonington]

It would wipe out the majority of species in the oceans. What you are doubting is that species evolved to an alkaline environment (the ocean pH is currently around 8.3) would die in a low pH environment, what's low to you? 6? 5? 4? They would die. There's no doubting that. The only things that could live in a low pH ocean are the bacterium and any diatoms that still have the capacity to live in a highly acidic environment. Fish are gone, shellfish are gone, corals are gone, most of the algae is gone, in that scenario.

High carbon dioxide does not mean an algae bloom, because carbon dioxide is not the limiting nutrient in the ocean eco-system. That would be phosphorous and nitrogen. In some cases it's also iron. When you see a satellite photo of an algal bloom, it's not because there is suddenly an increase in carbon dioxide, it is because currents bring up nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen. In some cases that's a bad thing too. Ocean dead zones for instance in the Gulf of Mexico are a result of eutrophication. An algal bloom resulting from excess terrestrial fertilizers that drains the entire Mississippi basin, and then the algae consume all available nutrients. Oxygen is completely removed.

 

[Mongul]

It would wipe out the majority of species in the oceans. What you are doubting is that species evolved to an alkaline environment (the ocean pH is currently around 8.3) would die in a low pH environment, what's low to you? 6? 5? 4? They would die. There's no doubting that. The only things that could live in a low pH ocean are the bacterium and any diatoms that still have the capacity to live in a highly acidic environment. Fish are gone, shellfish are gone, corals are gone, most of the algae is gone, in that scenario.

High carbon dioxide does not mean an algae bloom, because carbon dioxide is not the limiting nutrient in the ocean eco-system. That would be phosphorous and nitrogen. In some cases it's also iron. When you see a satellite photo of an algal bloom, it's not because there is suddenly an increase in carbon dioxide, it is because currents bring up nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen. In some cases that's a bad thing too. Ocean dead zones for instance in the Gulf of Mexico are a result of eutrophication. An algal bloom resulting from excess terrestrial fertilizers that drains the entire Mississippi basin, and then the algae consume all available nutrients. Oxygen is completely removed.

Ocean PH level will not reach 6, i doubt they would go any lower than 7. Over the past 100 years ocean ph levels have dropped by about 0.1 in magnitude. The oceans would need to be saturated in H2CO3 in order for the acidity to approach 4 PH. There would be no way the release of carbon deposited by dead life forms could wipe out a majority of oceanic creatures. Nor would it change the Aquatic envrionment as much as you suggest.

I was serious about growing algae you know

 

[Tonington]

Ocean PH level will not reach 6, i doubt they would go any lower than 7. Over the past 100 years ocean ph levels have dropped by about 0.1 in magnitude. The oceans would need to be saturated in H2CO3 in order for the acidity to approach 4 PH. There would be no way the release of carbon deposited by dead life forms could wipe out a majority of oceanic creatures. Nor would it change the Aquatic envrionment as much as you suggest.

I was serious about growing algae you know

You're the one who said low pH. Low pH is considerably lower than a neutral pH. And in that case it would kill almost all ocean life. So, maybe you want to rephrase your question?

I didn't suggest the release of carbon by dead life forms could wipe out a majority of ocean creatures. I said eutrophication by adding other nutrients can, and it does. I did say that a low pH would wipe out nearly all life in the ocean, which it would. Low pH=acid, which will kill most marine species...

 

[Mongul]

I stated that i was talking about relatively low PH, as in compared to the current PH level in the oceans. Frankly i don't know the exact PH threshold where the majority of aquatic life forms would perish

 

[Walter]

The so-called consensus on global warming is melting
Susan MartinukCalgary Herald

Friday, December 19, 2008


News reports from last week's UN Climate Change Summit in Poland told us global warming is "a ticking time bomb" bringing "death and destruction" to the world. Others suggested Arctic ice levels are at their lowest point ever and may disappear entirely by 2015, CO2 levels are 10 per cent higher than what is safe and basic survival will force polar bears to give up their tasty staple of seal meat for "scrambled eggs" from the nests of snow geese. (Those who've attempted to convert a cat to new food will understand the potential difficulties in explaining this to the polar bears.)
Fittingly, self-proclaimed climate expert Al Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."
The only thing more significant to the future of our planet than the "five-alarm fire" reported from the conference is --what we weren't told.
Most news reports neglected to mention a major challenge to scientific claims in the UN's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) document at the core of conference policy discussions. The U.S. Senate Minority Report presents dissenting statements by 650 prominent international scientists, including current and former members of the IPCC. Further, the number of dissenters has increased from 400 just one year ago when the report was first released.
As news reports falsely told Canadians, "Scientists and governments from around the world have reached a consensus" about human activity causing global warming, the real story is that large numbers of scientists are switching teams to declare global warming science is far from settled and there is no consensus.
The Senate report quotes one Nobel-winning scientist as saying, "I am a skeptic . . . global warming has become a new religion." A climate expert says the debate now follows "a fundamentally unscientific approach,"while a former IPCC member says the climate change models used to project global warming changes are only useful in "explaining climate changes after the fact." Another former IPCC member is now undertaking a "detailed assessment" of how the IPCC policy-makers "distorted the science" when drafting its policy document.
How did the UN IPCC reports become the gold standard for documenting global warming if there are so many doubters? Because non-scientist policy-makers have the final say on what scientific conclusions and policies are included and UN claims of scientific support are highly exaggerated.
For example, the UN claimed 2,500 scientists supported its key claim that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. But those 2,500 weren't asked to support it--they were only asked to review it. Only 62 completed the review, and 55 had serious concerns, leaving a total of seven to support the science that is the basis of the IPCC climate-change policy.
This, in part, is why many scientists are now speaking out.
A 2008 survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68 per cent disagreed with the claim that global warming science is settled. And 31,000 American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project that urges the U. S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty and any similar proposals, saying there is "no convincing scientific evidence" of a "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere."
We may be experiencing some extreme weather, but there is no scientific consensus global warming is the cause or is even occurring. If it is occurring, there is no scientific consensus it is creating catastrophic conditions for the planet or that humans are the primary cause.
Despite all this, Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice told the U. S. there is a "sense of urgency" to negotiate a climate change agreement and Canada is prepared to act. That's particularly frightening when the scientific basis of the plan is not only unproven, but increasingly being disproven.
Ironically, our only hope for an appropriate response may be the downward spiralling economy. Surveys consistently show Canadians' altruistic support for climate-change initiatives drops as our cost grows. As we enter a recession, the last thing Canadians will want is for government to toss tax dollars into an unproven climate change money pit.
If scientific trends and scientists are increasingly contradicting what environmental interest groups have been telling us about climate change, it's quite reasonable to expect any consensus on what we should do could be very different three years from now. It would be a shame to take steps now that will later be considered a foolish waste of time and money.

 

[Walter]

December 19, 2008
Obama's choices for science advisors - global warming advocates

Rick Moran
[FONT=times new roman,times]According to Glenn Reynolds, one of the advisors actually believed at one time that economics should play no role in climate change policy. John Holden, tapped to be Obama's science advisor, is also a disciple of discredited population alarmist Paul Ehrlich:

[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]“In his salad days, Holdren was a paid-up member of The Limits to Growth club. . . . Near the beginning of his career, Holdren introduced with his colleague, perennial population alarmist Paul Ehriich, the concept of the I=PAT equation. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity’s impact on the natural world. In the past Holdren has adhered to the common ecologist’s disdain for insights from economics in helping solve environmental problems.” There’s some hope that he’s wised up since: “Holdren now apparently sees technology as a solution to environmental problems and human poverty.” Say a little prayer that that’s right.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman,times]
And Obama has chosen Jane Lubchenco to head up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - another advocate for global warming:

[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Lubchenco did not draw the same level of criticism from conservative groups as Holdren yesterday, but she represents just as radical a departure for NOAA, which oversees marine issues as well as much of the government's climate work. While NOAA has traditionally favored commercial fishing interests in policy disputes, Lubchenco has consistently called for conservation measures to safeguard ocean ecosystems in the face of industry opposition. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment group, said NOAA officials have too often set aside scientific considerations when deciding how much fish to extract from the sea. "For too many years, politics has played a greater role in fisheries management than science," he said. "This appointment carries with it the hope that this may soon change." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Holdren and Lubchenco have pushed other scientists to play a more active policy role. Holdren has attended international climate talks and helped coordinate a statement on the subject from scientific academies around the world. Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to teach mid-career scientists how to participate in public policy debates.
[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman,times]Both believe in catastrophic climate change scenarios - despite growing evidence to the contrary. Will they act like scientists and keep an open mind on climate change data? The appointment of Holder is not encouraging in that regard. Lubchenco, on the other hand, may surprise us.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]But clearly, the Obama Administration will want to implement some kind of green house gas reduction scheme - even in the middle of a deep recession - in the first half of their term in office.[/FONT]

Barry's road to hell.