Friday, January 25, 2008

Green Green, It's Green They Say......

Message #9 - 01/25/08 04:07 PM
Dedicated To Al Gore..........clap your hands and all sing along now......
(GCB Stokes.....back me up on the bass....sevenheart on the cymbals.....and Grillednutria on the drums)......Where's Athena....we need her harmony.....

A must-see music video

Click to view image

Green Green (lyrics)
Green green it's green they say on the farside of the hill
Green green I'm going away to where the grass is greener still
Well I told my mama on the day I was born
Don't you cry when you see I'm gone
You know there ain't no woman gonna settle me down
I just gotta be travelin' on
Green green it's green they say...
Oh there ain't nobody in this whole wide world
Gonna tell me how to spend my time
I'm just a good lovin' ramblin' man
Say buddy could you spare me a dime
Green green it's green they say...
Well I don't care when the sun goes down
Where I can lay my weary head
Green green valley or rocky road
It's where I'm gonna make my bed
Green green it's green they say...
To where the grass is greener still
To where the grass is greener still

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Truth? Antarctic Ice Growing.....

Composite satellite image of Antarctica. It's 5.4 million square miles make it the Earth's 5th largest continent. About 98% of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet (glacier) at least 1 kilometer thick.

Glaciers always melt around their edges during the summer, making for dramatic videos of big splashes as the glaciers "calve" off pieces into the sea. People "oohhhh and ahhhh".......and say, "see? proof of global warming". The truth is, more more snow is being added than lost. It seems the Antarctic glaciers are growing...not shrinking.

Jan 22, 2008
Antarctica Snowfall Increase
World Climate Report
The ice caps hold a special place in the cold hearts of the global warming advocates who are all too quick to insist that our ice caps are currently melting at an unprecedented rate. We suspect that they will not be particularly thrilled to learn that a paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. In case you think that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada would have little interest in Antarctica, recall from geography classes you’ve had that Antarctica receives little precipitation and is regarded by climatologists as a frozen desert.

So while we’ve heard recent reports about Antarctica losing ice, here we again find evidence to the contrary, and then some, at least in these locations. Not only is there no evidence of melting at the Gomez site, snow is accumulating there at an amazingly high rate. Clearly, this paper adds to the evidence that suggests that we simply, as of yet, do not have a firm grasp on the climate changes and their drivers that are effecting Antarctica, past, present, or, much less, future.

Read more here.

Man-caused Climate Change? Think Again.....

more from sevenheart.....

Message #2 - 01/23/08 04:41 PM
I never cease to be amazed at the anthropocentric attitude of intellectuals. While mankind may have dammed a few rivers, killed off the dodo bird and the passenger pigeon and made a mess of things in some places that we have yet to clean up, the belief that we somehow possess the power to "change" the climate or any other force of nature is nothing less than comical.

We have no more power to "change the climate" than we do control which way the wind blows, to stop an earthquake, still a volcanic eruption, prevent an ocean wave, stifle a tornado, direct or stop a hurricane, end a blizzard or tone down a massive thunder storm. We don't even really stop forest fires, we contain them, if we are lucky. While there may be powerful Wall Street wheeler dealers who can influence the world economy or politicians who wield certain power or despots who can murder millions of people, there is no way mankind individually or collectively can "change the climate". With the urbanization of so many people has come a misguided belief that we exude overwhelming control over nature.

I guess I've just seen too many examples of how nature dwarfs the efforts of mankind. Look at the Teton Dam break and the subsequent 300 foot high wall of water.

Or consider an "act of nature" in the Big Thompson Flood of 1976.
or better yet Two friends of mine left their teenage sons to manage their farm and took a break there after the intense work of the wheat harvest. They were among the 5 people never found, Bill and Myrtle Nelson.

Or the Rapid City Flood-

The Easter 1964 earthquake in Alaska- check out the three pages of damage photos

Of course everyone is still aware of the Tsunami that struck Thailand, India, etc
Anthropocentric power? Doesn't even compare.

Today's Truth Award Goes To......

sevenheart.......for finding this video of Hillary Clinton stating how she plans on dealing with the energy crisis...... Expose her lies, lies, and more lies.....

Message #324 - 01/23/08 05:56 PM
Here you go.
Noble cause for confiscation or not, history is full of examples of what will happen. No profit, no oil company activity to earn a profit.

Environmental Group Trys To Stifle Scientific Debate On College Campuses


Environmental Group Strives To Stifle Debate On Global Warming At Colleges

Here is a prime example of the ongoing effort to stifle the scientific inquiry into the real causes of global warming. This time an "environmental advocacy group" called Focus the Nation is taking their totally unscientific, biased message to college campuses across the country. They say, again, that the "debate is over". They insist now is the time to act, to limit "greenhouse gas" emissions.

Well, what nonsense! This is all based on the UN's flawed IPCC report and the political machinations of Al Gore's true believers. "Focus The Nation" is basing their efforts on what some experts call the biggest scam, or swindle, in history.......promoting the MYTH of man-caused global warming. Now they're trying to brainwash our eager, but naive youth.

We will try to reveal the truth. The articles, comments, essays, and science reproduced here on this blog reveal some of the truth. Spread the word.

Global Warming Teach-In Coming to Campuses Nationwide

By Evan Moore Correspondent January 23, 2008(

On Jan. 31, the environmental advocacy group Focus the Nation will hold a teach-in on more than 1,000 college campuses nationwide to discuss solutions for global warming. The event is based on the premise that scientific debate about the existence of global warming is "over."

Many critics, however, say the teach-in is an attempt to end debate and advance "draconian" public policies. In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Alex Tinker, public relations director for Focus the Nation, said the idea behind the teach-in model is inclusion: It "engages students across all disciplines on a campus, not just the usual suspects who would come to a special environmentally oriented event, so that you can actually reach an audience big enough to reach that critical mass to get real legislation passed in Washington."The teach-in, as defined by Focus the Nation's Web site, "is a day when an entire school turns its attention to a single issue -- when faculty, students, and staff put aside business as usual, and focus the full weight of campus engagement on one topic."

Tinker noted that the majority of hosting universities are not planning on halting classes altogether, but many are planning on incorporating the message of the teach-in into the content of regularly scheduled classes."The premise behind Focus the Nation is that 'The science is in. Global warming is real," said Tinker. "There's no longer a meaningful scientific debate about whether or not global warming is caused by human kind - the debate should be about what policy solutions we need to enact to address it."

Tinker said Focus the Nation is encouraging students to adopt policy solutions they deem prescriptive and to lobby their congressmen on global warming. Some of the solutions that Focus the Nation offers include a tax on emissions, increased support for biofuels, and the creation of 1 million new "green jobs" - workers who would service America's infrastructure to be more ecologically friendly.

Critics blast George C. Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank, criticized Tinker and Focus the Nation. "I've talked to way too many scientists - many of whom are on the IPCC [the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] - who look at the data and don't see a human footprint," Landrith told Cybercast News Service. "They don't see this as something that we're causing, and they don't see this as catastrophic. They see it as natural and largely benign. We definitely and absolutely disagree with the idea that 'science is certain, the debate is over, blah blah blah.'"

"If the debate were over, there wouldn't be literally hundreds of scientists stepping up and saying 'No, this is wrong,' and people like Al Gore and his ilk wouldn't be working so hard to make sure that they cut off discussion," said Landrith. "The truth is that they're engaging in polemics, not science."Fluctuations in climate have always occurred throughout history, he said. In the latter part of the 20th century there was a "modest, one degree warming," said Landrith, which is "well within the natural norms."

Before Congress adopts "draconian regulatory regimes" to supposedly fight global warming - killing thousands of jobs in the process - we need to ensure "we have our science right," he said.

Some reaction
George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., will host another Focus the Nation teach-in on Jan. 29. In an interview with Cybercast News Service, the university's press secretary, Dan Walsch, said, "This is an issue that a number of faculty members are heavily interested in, on a professional and personal level," and after a series of meetings, the school decided to hold the teach-in.Walsch added that the school does not have a policy position on global warming.

Dane Styler, managing director of Connect2Mason, a Web site focusing on the GMU community, told Cybercast News Service that students had just returned to school on Tuesday and there was not much campus buzz on the teach-in. He noted, however, that GMU has devoted itself to eco-friendly measures for the past few years. These include developing a sustainability office to highlight measures on campus to improve the college's environmental impact. Styler said he thinks global warming is real, manmade, and poses a threat to civilization. "The data's there," he said."We're producing enough gasses and chemicals that there's actually been a change in the [atmospheric] temperature."

Celia Taylor, a GMU alumna, disagreed with Styler but told Cybercast News Service that she was nonetheless pleased with her alma mater. "Even if I disagree on the stance on the issue, I have always applauded Mason for being involved," she said. "Doing so not only makes the institution a national name but also involves, engages, and encourages its students to think critically, even to disagree," Taylor said."I will continue to vocalize my support of the school and its involvement in current issues at the same time that I vocalize my disagreement on this particular issue," she added.


Saturday, January 19, 2008

Lies, Lies and more Lies About Global Warming...This Time From CBS...

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Lies, Lies and More Lies About Global Warming
I hope someone records this and plays it on YouTube for the whole world to see.......and scoff at the continued lies about man-caused global warming.

60 Minutes' Preempted This Sunday for Global Warming January 19, 2008 - 11:34 ET

Fortunately, most people will likely be watching the Giants-Packers game Sunday evening, and will therefore miss the one-sided hysteria.

However, for those that mysteriously don't switch channels after the Chargers-Patriots game, CBS will offer a special about global warming this Sunday instead of "60 Minutes."

How marvelous. Nowhere is the evidence of global warming as striking than near the earth's poles. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley's report brings him to the top and the bottom of the world, where scientists point out the effects of the warming trend. He also speaks to NASA's top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming.

This teaser raises many important questions. For instance, will even one of the over 400 scientists that don't believe man is responsible for global warming be interviewed by Pelley? Or, will he exclusively talk to folks that are involved in advancing this yet unproven theory?

Will any of the scientific studies concerning historical ice levels in the Arctic and the Antarctic be sited, or just the satellite data for the past thirty years?

Assuming the top NASA scientist Pelley will be speaking to is the controversial head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hansen, will he be asked about his connection to George Soros? Or that the GISS predicted an ice age back in 1971? Or that Hansen's organization made a huge error in calculating temperatures this decade that was uncovered by Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre?

Speaking of McIntyre, might Pelley ask Hansen about Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" model which forms the basis of most anthropogenic global warming theories, but has been totally discredited?

Or how about all those weather stations overseen by Hansen's organization that don't meet federal guidelines?

Might Pelley bring this up on Sunday, and get the GISS director's view on the subject?And when Pelley speaks to Hansen about the Bush administration supposedly restricting what he can say about global warming, will Pelley mention the RealClimate website and blog that Hansen is involved with? Or reference all of the articles that Hansen has written concerning this subject while he was supposedly being silenced by the White House?

Finally, will Pelley ask Hansen about his connection to Al Gore, and how the Nobel Laureate's film has been found by a British court to be filled with scientific errors?

Or, will this installment be exclusively filled with one-sided information on this controversial subject with not one shred of balance for the viewer?

Yes, sadly, these were all rhetorical questions.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

More Skeptical Scientists Express Doubts About Man-Caused Global Warming

More Scientists Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming Speak Out
There is a growing list of scientists expressing their skepticism over the presumption of man-caused global warming and climate change. As it becomes more politically acceptable to express doubt, I think this trend will continue.

Below are the latest scientists to be added to the over 400 scientists who dispute man-made global warming claims: (Marc Morano)

1. Chemist and Biochemist Dr. Michael F. Farona, an emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Akron and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, critiqued the news media for inadequate reporting about global warming and expressed climate skepticism. “Data, numbers, graphs, trends, etc., are generally missing in supposedly scientific reports on global warming. These articles are usually long on opinions and short on hard data. Phrases such as ‘scientists agree that ...’ scientists doubt that ...’ do not belong in a scientific article.

There are more data in Michael Crichton's novel ‘State of Fear’ than in all the global warming articles combined that I have read,” Farona wrote on January 3, 2008.“There have been at least four interglacial periods, where the glaciers have advanced and retreated. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and, in the case of North America, left the Great Lakes in the glacier's retreat. The glaciers are still retreating, so there should not be any great surprise that the sea level is rising. The industrial revolution is about 150 years old, compared to 10,000 years of warming. Can human activities have really made a significant contribution to rising temperatures in that amount of time?” Farona asked.

“We know that the east coast of the U.S. was flooded during the previous interglacial period, so sea level rising and coastal flooding are not unique to this interglacial period. Why now the draconian predictions of coastal flooding as if this has not happened before?” he continued. “What is the relationship between an increased level of carbon dioxide and temperature? Can it be predicted that an increase of so many parts per billion of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of so many degrees? I have not seen any answers to the questions posed above, leading me to adopt a somewhat skeptical view of blaming global warming on human activities.What puzzles me is the reluctance of climatologists to provide scientific data supporting their dire predictions of the near future if we don't change our ways,” Farona concluded.

2. Award winning meteorologist Brian Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), former member of the AMS Education Advisory Committee, and formerly of KPIX-TV CBS in San Francisco, is the author of the forthcoming book “Global Whining: A Denier’s Handbook.” “Mankind's burning of fossil fuels is allegedly warming the planet. This hypothesis couldn't stand the test of an eighth grade science fair. And if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you're branded a 'denier,’” Sussman told EPW on January 3, 2008. “Well fine. I'd rather be called a 'denier' than try to push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy,” Sussman added.

3. Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased number or intensity in the North Atlantic.

Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking on tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. "There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what's going on with the climate," Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. "Most scientists just don't want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one's academic career.

Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet," Briggs explained."It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill," Briggs wrote. "The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models," he concluded.

4. Hydrologist and geologist Mike McConnell of the U.S. Forest Service is a professional Earth scientist who has studied atmospheric pollution, post-wildfire mitigation planning, and groundwater surface water modeling. In 2007, McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis. “Climate change is a climate system that we have no real control over,” McConnell wrote on December 27, 2007. “Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited.

Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways,” McConnell explained. He also dismissed claims that the human race was “the cause of our global warming.”McConnell wrote, “There is no real basis for this. There is a growing body of scientific literature outlining that this not to be the case.”

He concluded, “Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we're not.”

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Global Dimming? The Search For Truth Goes On.....

Things are not always as simple as we might like them to be. Here is some independent thought on the issue of climate change. Someone give Al Gore a wake-up call, please.

In a message dated 1/12/2008 11:44:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

Try googling "Global Dimming".
This may explain why we are getting colder temps when we are supposed to be getting warmer. Inadvertently some pollution (mainly particulates) is counteracting the effects of carbon dioxide. It's kind of like taking a medication to counteract the side effects of another medication that counteracts the side effects of a medication. Ironically, efforts to reduce particulate pollution may be letting global warming get worse.

Basically the pollution problem is far more complex that anybody thought. So some areas may get warmer while other places get cooler. So light a burn pile up to stop global warming. Make certain it's good and wet. Then again we could be creating a strange atmospheric brew that could do some really weird things in the future. We just don't know.

Global dimming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global dimming
is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that
was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in
1950s. It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfur
aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The effect varies by location,
but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over
the three decades from 1960–1990. The trend reversed during the past decade.
Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by
reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming
also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global

Climate Carpet Baggers....More.......

Regarding a previous post about the organization called Center For Climate Strategies (CCS), a group who influences our State lawmakers, here is a response from one of our more intelligent observers:

Hi Peter,
I was reading the post on your new blog about 'ClimateCarpetbaggers' and did a little further research on CCS. I gotta tell ya, if I were ever in the market for a diabolical plan to manipulate the masses, I'd definitely borrow a few pointers from these guys. What better way to defraud people than to make them practically beg to be screwed. Convince people they're in imminent danger and be ready with a plan of salvation. And with a willing, though perhaps sometimes unwitting, accomplice in the sensationalized media, how can you go wrong? No recriminations.

Of course you have to remove all mention of 'doubt'; simply don't acknowledge any hint of skepticism and it doesn't exist. Minimizing the amount of opposition in this manner is the best way to help lure politicians who have a natural instinct to protect their own ass. And it's so much simpler to implement worthless policies which require sacrifice and economic loss when people believe it's inevitable. Hell, these guys are so good they actually have people protesting and demanding to be f*** over. It's pretty ingenious.

Distortion of the Truth.......Science Corrupted

The following is an excellent example of what happens when science and politics become confused. This statement by Stephen Schneider explains how and why the public has been so grievously misled about the true nature of global warming and climate change.

Message #6 - 01/13/08 01:49 AM
I never will forget the response of Stephen Schneider. lead 2007 IPCC Report Author who said-----

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stephen H. Schneider (born c. 1945) is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (and Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) at Stanford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He has served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Climate Carpetbaggers Supressing The Truth About Global Warming

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Climate Carpetbaggers Pressuring Our State Governments
Read the following and then ask, "is this how we want our State governments to operate?" It seems we have this central authority influencing environmental policy concerning global warming and climate change and claiming any scientific question on the subject is over, and unnecessary.

This kind of "group think", seems to be spreading like the plague; is this what we want? Just the fact that this organization exists is not good for anyone; certainly not those seeking the truth about global warming and climate change. Does this organization feel threatened by those of us who are skeptical of the myth of man-caused global warming? You can bet they do!

See the website for The Center For Climate Strategies here.

Climate Carpetbaggers
Coming soon to a state near you: global warming carpetbaggers who care not a whit about any discussion of global warming science. That’s about as charitable thing as can be said about the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), an offshoot of the radical Pennsylvania Environmental Council, a group famous for environmental scaremongering.

CCS is fanning teams of “facilitators” nationwide, presenting itself as some neutral body promoting a “consensus” on global warming policy, and specifically instructing the states that they are not to discuss global warming science when talking about climate change policy.

Here’s how it works. Given that its been around for two decades now, the global warming policy community is an established one. It’s pretty hard to find a state environmental agency or state legislative staff that doesn’t have more than a few from this crowd. They go to the same junkets and read the same blogs. It’s a network, OK?

CCS activates this network when it is politically opportune. It’s easy to take advantage of bad weather news, of which there is always plenty, since the U.S. has more tornadoes, more people living in the way of hurricanes, and more violent weather of just about every stripe then just about every other civilized nation. We owe this peculiar blessing to the fact that we live in one of the few places on earth where the most substantial boundary between polar cold and tropical warmth is a barbed-wire fence.

When the newsies are buzzing, like they are almost every hurricane season, CCS gets on the horn and passes the word: it’s time for someone in state government to lobby the governor on global warming—specifically to note that all this press means that it is politically expedient to establish some type of global warming task force. How to do this? The governor and his staff are usually busy with real-world problems like traffic jams and healthcare. “Call CCS—they’ll fix it,” say the staff.

They fix it well enough to provide each state with their own “climate change action plan” homepage. Proof that CCS is doing this can be found by examining several of these state pages, where the exact same language describing CCS is found in each one. In state after state, CCS “advises” on this process, specifically what to do in order to achieve “consensus”, i.e. policy. In fact, CCS presents a series of stipulations, one of which is particularly odd: The Commission will take discussion of global warming science off the table.

Want to get to the core of any dispute, from a domestic spat to international relations? Look under the table. Here’s what CCS wants out of sight. Global warming isn’t going exactly as the apocalypse floggers had planned. Yes, the planet’s mean surface temperature (a strange measure of welfare) is about 0.8°C warmer than it was 100 years ago. People probably are responsible for about half of this. No matter.

A century ago life in the developed world lasted a little more than half as long as it does now. The poor used to be skinny. Now they are so overfed that poverty and obesity are highly correlated. Inflation-adjusted income is over ten times what it was. Unless several billion dollars worth of climate science are dead wrong, the rate of recent warming tells us much about what the future will bring: a modest change, with a bit more than twice as much warming this century as in the last one, if environmental and energy technology remain static. (Hint: they won’t).

Hurricanes? The number won’t change. The number of people choosing to expose themselves to them will increase, as will the value of the exposed properties. If they were such a big deal, why are people willing to shell out their life’s savings (and more) for a house on Cape Hatteras, one of the most hurricane-prone spots on earth?

Sea level? Estimates of change for this century keep coming down, again thanks to the interposition of reality.

Deaths? Global warming is supposed to increase the frequency of urban heatwaves. All that means is that fewer people will die from them. It’s a fact: where heatwaves are frequent, heat-related deaths are rare. In the U.S., Phoenix, Tampa, and Miami—our three hottest cities—have the lowest rates of deaths caused by hot weather, despite their aging populations. The only one where the rates are increasing is in chilly Seattle—not exactly a retirement destination, either.
Note to CCS: people adapt.

Policy? There isn’t any extant suite of technologies that are politically acceptable to the CCS crowd that can significantly alter the warming trajectory of the planet. Hint: try proposing nuclear power at a CCS-facilitated “stakeholder” meeting.

That’s the science that CCS wants off the table. When your governor announces his or her task force, when you find out that CCS is behind this, it’s time to discuss the science, or to send the climate carpetbaggers back to Pennsylvania.


Thursday, January 10, 2008

Global Climate Modeling: Fact or Fiction, And How Much Truth?

Global Climate Modeling: What Temperatures To Use, What Variables Are There?
John Tierney, a columnist for the New York Times is beginning to ask some probing questions about global warming and the science behind the global climate models used for predictions. He is expressing a good deal of doubt. Of course skeptics (like me) have more than just a little doubt, as even a brief review of material on my blog will show. I think it is a positive sign that the large, liberal, mainstream media like the New York Times is beginning to question the Al Gore and United Nations views on climate. It is about time.


January 10, 2008, 8:58 am

A Spot Check of Global Warming

How do predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change jibe with reality? The solid brown line shows the warming projected by the IPCC, with a range of uncertainty bounded by the dotted brown lines. The other lines show the actual temperatures recorded during the past seven years by different methods on the ground and by satellite. (The lines show the amount of warming, in degrees Celsius, relative to the average temperature during the last two decades of the 20th century.) (Source: Roger A. Pielke, Jr.)
Last week I asked if there were any good weather omens to look for. I raised a question originally posed by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado: Are there any indicators in the next 1, 5 or 10 years that would be inconsistent with the consensus view on climate change?Lab readers contributed some ideas (and much invective), but I think the most useful one came from a climate scientist who wrote directly to Dr. Pielke and suggested comparing what has happened since 2000 with the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Dr. Pielke took up the suggestion and looked at the increase in global average temperature projected by the IPCC from 2000 to 2007. (The IPCC projected various scenarios, depending on the rate of greenhouse emissions; Dr. Pielke chose the scenario that most closely matches the actual emissions since 2000.) The hard part was figuring out what has actually happened the past seven years, because it all depends on who’s doing the measuring, and whether it’s being done on the surface or by satellite.
As you can see from the blue line in the graph above, the recent surface measurements by NASA (the blue line) are warmer than those by the United Kingdom Met Office (the green line), and there are different satellite measurements from Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Dr. Pielke calls it “a feast for cherrypickers.”
In the Prometheus blog, where you can read the details of his computations, he writes: “One can arrive at whatever conclusion one wants with respect to the IPCC predictions. Want the temperature record to be consistent with IPCC? OK, then you like NASA. How about inconsistent? Well, then you are a fan of RSS. On the fence? Well, UAH and UKMET serve that purpose pretty well.”No matter which line you prefer on the graph, you can’t draw any firm conclusions about the IPCC’s projections — a few years does not a trend make, and the global temperature is just one of the indicators to look at. But the different lines on the graph are certainly evidence of how complicated the climate debate is.
If scientists can’t even agree on what has happened in the past, imagine how much more difficult it is to figure out the future. I’m not suggesting that the global warming isn’t real, or that the uncertainties justify inaction — we take out insurance all the time against risks that are uncertain. I’d like to see a carbon tax. But I’d also like to see fewer dogmatists claiming that the scientific debate is over.
Dr. Pielke suggests that more scientists do reality checks on other predictions by the IPCC, and that the IPCC make it easier for its predictions to be tested by specifying in detail what the variables are, who is measuring them, and what to look for in the future. “If weather forecasters, stock brokers, and gamblers can do it, then you can too,” he urges the IPCC in his blog post.
Dr. Pielke told me that scientists have been focusing on the predictions for the summer ice melt in the Arctic — which called for less dramatic change than what has actually occurred — but not paying enough attention to other indicators.“Rather than select among predictions, why not verify them all?” he said. “Seven years is not a lot to allow much to be said, but certainly 10 and 15 years will be. Once predictions are made, they should not be forgotten, but evaluated against experience. This is not skepticism at work, just the good old scientific method.”
If you’ve got any thoughts on how to interpret the results on Dr. Pielke’s graph — or how to look for other indicators — let me know. I’d be glad to hear suggestions from scientists at the popular Real Climate blog on a short list of variables (beyond temperature and sea ice) that might be used to compare with specific IPCC predictions and point interested readers to where data on them can be found.

Proof That Man Is NOT The Cause Of Global Warming

Who ever said that science was dull and boring is wrong.

GCB Stokes
Message #38 - 01/09/08 11:46 PM
No reliable scientific data from beachside reporting? How dare you! My scientific data is not only reliable and accurate, but is peer-reviewed more then any other research in years..... I have you know that during my hummingbird studies, I have discovered the true climate forcing agents right on Boqueron Beach in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico!
Here's my peer-reviewed research:

Now perhaps you and GeoPeter will give my studies a little more respect!.....
I see a Cover Story in my future.......

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Carbon Offsets: An Example Of How Science And Truth Are Corrupted

The following how the science behind global warming is being corrupted, has been politicized, and is now being used for financial gain by a corrupt few, and being bought by a gullible public. "The Fellowship of Scientific Truth" must expose this vast scandal.

Carbon Offsets: A Prime Example Of How Gullible People Can Be
There are apparently a lot of people who are so gullible, or have money to burn, that they think paying someone to plant a tree for them will "offset" the carbon "pollution" they create.

The story goes something like this:Basically everything we do produces carbon dioxide gas, which goes into the atmosphere and increases global warming or what is now called "climate change". We are all guilty to some extent because even when we breathe and exhale, we are emitting carbon dioxide, or CO2.Any of us who drive or ride in automobiles or trucks create tons of CO2. Every time we turn on a light, or fire up our computers we are using electricity which is most likely produced by burning coal. We have been made to feel guilty for simply going about our daily activities of living. Now however we have a means of redemption available.

We can buy "carbon offsets". The theory is that if we put "X" amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we can remove "X" amount of CO2 from the atmosphere by planting a tree. Trees of course take CO2 from the atmosphere and release oxygen. Alternatively, the money from carbon offsets can be used to erect a wind turbine, or erect solar panels to generate "clean" electricity. There is hardly a limit to what those selling carbon offsets say they will do to make you feel less guilty about your polluting ways. The catch is, where is all that money really going, are they really doing what they promise?

Oh, and there are a few other "minor" questions. Does CO2 really even cause global warming? Will people spending untold millions on carbon offsets and doing something as simple as planting a tree, actually affect the weather, stop the flooding, and tornadoes, and hurricanes, ease the drought, save the polar bears, and coral reefs? Or are people just setting an unbelievable new record for being gullible?

The following article from the New York Times raises some red flags suggesting that much, if not all of the money spent on carbon offsets accomplishes nothing, other than making a few people rich. I think this fits the definition of scam, a con, a swindle, or a confidence trick. I bet you can guess who the chief shyster is. (A shyster is someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous way, or a con artist. The origin is mostly likely from German Scheisser - "incompetent worthless person," literally "defecator".)


F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent
By LOUISE STORYPublished: January 9, 2008
Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.But where exactly is that money going?The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.As more companies use offset programs to create an environmental halo over their products, the commission said it was growing increasingly concerned that some green marketing assertions were not substantiated. Environmentalists have a word for such misleading advertising: “greenwashing.”

With the rapid growth of green programs like carbon offsets, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the commission.The F.T.C. has not updated its environmental advertising guidelines, known as the Green Guides, since 1998. Back then, the agency did not create definitions for phrases that are common now — like renewable energy, carbon offsets and sustainability.

For now, it is soliciting comments on how to update its guidelines and is gathering information about how carbon-offset programs work. Consumers seem to be confronted with green-sounding offers at every turn. Volkswagen told buyers last year that it would offset their first year of driving by planting in what it called the VW Forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley (the price starts at $18).Dell lets visitors to its site fill their shopping carts with carbon offsets for their printers, computer monitors and even for themselves (the last at a cost of $99 a year).Continental Airlines lets travelers track the carbon impact of their itineraries.General Electric and Bank of America will translate credit card rewards points into offsets.

Most suppliers of carbon offsets say that the cost of planting a tree is roughly $5, and the tree must live for at least 100 years to fully compensate for the emissions in question. By comparison, an offset sold by Dell for three years’ use of a notebook computer costs $2.To supply and manage the carbon offsets, big consumer brands are turning to a growing number of little-known companies, like TerraPass, and nonprofits, like

These intermediaries also cater to corporations that want to become “carbon-neutral” by purchasing offsets for the carbon dioxide they release.Ms. Majoras of the F.T.C. pointed out that spokesmen for events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards have recently started saying that their events are carbon-neutral (though the Academy Awards drew criticism for the way its offsets were handled).

The F.T.C. has not accused anyone of wrongdoing — neither the providers of carbon offsets nor the consumer brands that sell them. But environmentalists say — and the F.T.C.’s hearings suggest — that it is only a matter of time until the market faces greater scrutiny from the government or environmental organizations.“Is there green substance behind the green sparkle?” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University and author of “Green to Gold,” a book about how companies use environmental strategies to their advantage.

“The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through.”Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that will reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.’s session on Tuesday raised a number of questions about certifications behind the claims, wondering if the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that would have happened even without their efforts.There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be neutralized by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to grasp., for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.Even the companies that market carbon offsets say they have wondered if the providers were living up to their promises.

When Gaiam, a yoga-equipment company, began selling offsets for shipping to consumers through the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, Chris Fischer, the company’s general manager, says he insisted on visiting one of the tree sites in Louisiana.“Not only did I want to know it existed, I wanted to make sure it was being done the way they said it was being done,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s not just ‘did they do it?’ — it’s ‘did they do it right?’”Gaiam has sold more than $200,000 in offset credits in the last two years, Mr. Fischer said.

Other companies have not had immediate success marketing the offsets. Last spring, Delta Air Lines began selling flight offsets — $5.50 for domestic round-trips, and $11 for international ones — but has so far not sold as many as it hoped, said Jena Thompson, director of Go Zero program at the Conservation Fund, which manages Delta’s offsets.Delta is trying to draw more attention to the program this month by setting up a carbon-offset kiosk at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. The airline did not consider increasing all ticket prices by the cost of carbon offsets because customers are price-sensitive, a spokeswoman, Betsy Talton, said.

Volkswagen has provided free offsets to everyone who purchased a car in the last five months. The offsets cover a year of driving for a typical driver, a spokesman, Keith Price, said. The company also gave customers the chance to buy offsets for additional years, an option that Mr. Price said had proved most popular in Southern California and the suburbs of Boston.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Quote Of The Day...

Message #5 - 01/08/08 10:10 PM
Truth takes time to settle out of the tubulent waters, but it eventually does,
forming a record in the bedrock of our common knowledge.

Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future

Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future
I wish I could post this entire speech, but I can only quote parts of it and encourage you to read it all here:

In the speech given January 25, 2005 before The Press Club, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Crichton talks about our environmental history, our perception of the present state of the climate, global warming, and the future. His insight, understanding, and interpretation are profound. It is unfortunate he is dismissed in some sectors as a "just" a fiction writer.

After his introduction, he says this about global warming:"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. "

"So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

He (Crichton) summarizes by saying: "The idea of spending trillions on the future is only sensible if you totally lack any historical sense, and any imagination about the future. ""If we should not spend our money on Kyoto, what should we do instead?"and........"Second, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can understand the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the Third World. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it. "and finally,"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken our phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world?

The global crisis is not 100 years from now—it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world." "And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now."

Michael Crichton: Environmentalism As Religion

Michael Crichton Speech: Environmentalism As Religion
I can't post the entire speech here without his permission, but this by Michael Crichton is worth reading and saving and contemplating. He sees environmentalism as becoming religion-like, and science being over-run.

Read the entire speech here:

He concludes by saying the following:
"Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that."

The Misuse Of Statistics

The Misuse Of Statistics.......
Statistics, relating to climate science, global warming and climate change, is something we all rely on. However, the collection and interpretation of data can be and often is misused. Consider the following:

There is a general perception that statistical knowledge is all-too-frequently intentionally misused, by finding ways to interpret the data that are favorable to the presenter. A famous quote, variously attributed, but thought to be from Benjamin Disraeli[1] is, "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." The well-known book How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff discusses many cases of deceptive uses of statistics, focusing on misleading graphs. By choosing (or rejecting, or modifying) a certain sample, results can be manipulated; throwing out outliers is one means of doing so. This may be the result of outright fraud or of subtle and unintentional bias on the part of the researcher. Thus, Harvard President Lawrence Lowell wrote in 1909 that statistics, "like veal pies, are good if you know the person that made them, and are sure of the ingredients."source:

What Is Meant By Truth And Science?

Time saving truth from falsehood and envy. (Francois Lemoyne, 1737)

What do we mean by truth and science? Here is how wikipedia defines it:

"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how nature works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate events under controlled conditions. It incorporates the philosophies of naturalism and employs reasoning.
In its most fundamental sense, modern science is a process by which we try to understand how the physical world works and how it came to be that way."


The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1]

Prominent Scientist Says Climate "Forecasts Are Political, Not Scientific"

The following is an essay by a very prominent biological Professor, Scientist, and author, Dr. Daniel Botkin. Note that he is not a "climatologist", or a meteorologist, but he has studied, observed, and reported on life in many forms and how it responds to climate change. He explains how and why he is disturbed and highly skeptical of how modern computer climate models are being used for political purposes, to influence and control public behavior. He is concerned about science being mis-used, and he is worried about how this will impact society.

I wish he would express his distaste for the hype and hysteria surrounding the man-caused global warming issue more strongly, but even someone with his impeccable credentials apparently dare not rock the boat too much. Heaven forbid, he might be labelled a "denier".

Daniel Botkin has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara since 1979. Currently Dan is Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Called one of the one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century.” (see ). he has been on the faculty of UCSB since 1979; for six years he was chairman of the University’s Environmental Studies Program. He is also President and Founder of The Center for the Study of the Environment, A Non-Profit Research and Educational Corporation.


Science and soothsaying
Published originally in the International Herald TribuneDecember 28, 2007
by Daniel B. Botkin
Now that the Bali conference is over and climate scientists have warned us again about the dire predictions of their climate models, a question remains: Will their forecasts come true? Given the current international focus on global warming, you would think that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, many people will want to know whether today’s predictions proved accurate.

But, in fact, people rarely look back to see if their old forecasts were on the mark. Foretelling the future has always been difficult and almost always wrong. Charles Mackay, in his wonderful 1841 book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” observes that the so-called necromancers of earlier centuries who purported to divine the future were grouped with the worst alchemists. Today, however, computers seem to have undermined our natural skepticism. Many of us put our faith in complex software that most of us cannot understand.

My own experience makes me skeptical of how environmental forecasting is being used. In 1991, several colleagues and I drew national and international attention when we used a computer model to forecast possible effects of global warming on an endangered species. Our computer program forecast that the Kirtland’s warbler, the first songbird in America ever subjected to a complete census, would likely face extinction by 2010. Its habitat, jack pine trees, would be unable to thrive in conditions that climate computer programs forecast for southern Michigan, the only place and only trees where the bird nested.

The computer told us these declines should be measurable even in the year we made the forecast. We suggested that measurements of jack pine growth be started to verify the forecasts and to see whether the potential effects of global warming on the diversity of life were actually occurring. People could have started going to southern Michigan to check out our forecasts 16 years ago. Nobody did. I tried to get funding to do this, but no government agency or private foundation was interested.

Even today, amid the furor over global warming, no one is rushing out to verify that it does indeed threaten the Michigan jack pine. (But, happily, independent action by the government, the Audubon Society and private individuals has brought the Kirtland’s warbler back from the brink of extinction.)

What could explain the lack of interest in verifying a dated computer forecast? After all, computer forecasts are the basis for the current alarm. Did people perhaps decide that a 16-year-old forecast had to have been based on inferior methods?

But wait a minute. Given the usual progress of science, won’t forecasting methods in the future always be better than in the past? What this suggests is that today the primary uses of, and interest in, such forecasts are political, not scientific - that scientists as well as politicians are using forecasts for political and ideological purposes to influence public behavior here and now.
The question is not really whether the forecasts are scientifically valid, but how much impetus they can provide to influence society.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 1960s, when research into global warming was just beginning, it seemed impossible that people could change the global environment; the Earth was just too big. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, considered the possibility in detail in the mid-19th century and decided it was impossible because the mass of living things amounted to less than a drop in the bucket compared to the weight of all the materials in the oceans, atmosphere, soil and rocks.

In the 1970s, however, scientists began to realize that life had in fact greatly changed the Earth’s environment, starting more than a billion years ago. At the same time, evidence was building that burning fossil fuels was increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. In 1957, Charles Keeling began the first continuous measurements to study carbon-dioxide change over time at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. By 1973, he reported at a landmark conference at Brookhaven National Laboratory on “Carbon and the Biosphere” that carbon dioxide showed a definite increase in 15 years, consistent with releases from burning fossil fuels. For those of us working on these issues, the scientific and environmental implications were vast.

Global environmental change began to become a political issue in the 1980s. Climatologists and astrophysicists showed that a nuclear war could put so much dust in the air that disastrous cooling would occur, the infamous nuclear winter. With the end of the Cold War, the focus shifted to global warming. At that time, climatologists explained that their computer models were crude approximations of the real atmosphere and pushed the limit of computer technology, requiring months of computing for a single simulation. You could accept either the results of these crude models or the less-formal projections by the most experienced meteorologists. The primary focus continued to be on the implications of what we knew.

In 1988, in a move that marked a shift to the politicization of forecasts, Congress asked the Environmental Protection Agency to report on the potential effects of global warming. Computer forecasting became much more complex; output from the huge climate models became input into ecological models. My projection for the little warbler was part of that work. The attempt was to be more realistic, but the result was that forecasts became more difficult to verify and also more alarming, thus drawing more and more public attention.

Thinking over this history, I see three primary uses of environmental computer forecasts: to understand the implications of what we know (Can living things change the global environment?); to know the future; and to influence public behavior. Only the first can be strictly scientific. The third is wandering farther and farther away from science.

Since proving the validity of long-term forecasts is difficult and the ultimate tests would take years, and since many scientists are alarmed at the dire scenarios, my colleagues are beginning to talk about whether it is O.K. to exaggerate and push forecasts that are not currently provable if the only way to get societies to act is to frighten people. I think it is not O.K. It is a short-term view, and even if it works, it will inevitably debase science and scientists.

Soothsayers have always tried to persuade people that they could predict the future. What is new today is that the incredibly powerful tools of science - nuclear weapons, flights to the moon, computers, iPods - have such huge implications for civilization that they may contain the seeds of their own destruction.

Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem.
Additional information about the Kirtland’s warbler forecast:
The scientific paper for the original forecast is:
Botkin, D. B., D. A. Woodby, and R. A. Nisbet, 1991, Kirtland’s Warbler Habitats: A Possible Early Indicator of Climatic Warming, Biological Conservation 56 (1): 63-78.
Those interested in the forecasting method can download the computer model of forest growth, JABOWA, from website and play around with it. The software is pretty easy to use, and you can grow your own forest, log it, test it against various global warming climate regimes, etc. It isn’t as sophisticated a computer game as you can get today, but it is ecologically realistic and is used in research around the world.
And if you really want to get into the science part of this in depth, there are other scientific papers, including:
Botkin, D. B., and R. A. Nisbet, 1992, Forest response to climatic change: effects of parameter estimation and choice of weather patterns on the reliability of projections, Climatic Change 20: 87-111.
Botkin, D. B. and R. A. Nisbet, 1992, Projecting the effects of climate change on biological diversity in forests, pp. 277 - 293 in R. Peters and T. Lovejoy, (Eds.) Consequences of the Greenhouse Effect for Biological Diversity, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Motto and Battle Cry: Free Carbon!

Every organization must have a motto.....this has been suggested......

Set Carbon Free!
Message #12 - 01/04/08 11:25 PM
That's how I think of it.........every time I take a drink.........I lift my glass and say...."here's to you Big Al, up yours".......

then I buy a round for the house......"Free this bottled-up carbon dioxide!".........That's what I say.....let it wander to all reaches of the atmosphere.....let it radiate to the utmost of its ability.......let it be a forcing.......let it over-rule the greenhouse effect of every other molecule.....even water vapor.......carbon dioxide rules!

Then I hear the call for another round from the growing chorus of skeptics.........yes.........a chant is beginning........"set carbon free"..........."set carbon free"........
GCB Stokes
Message #13 - 01/04/08 11:34 PM
"Set Carbon Free!" I like it......
Message #17 - 01/05/08 12:43 PM
You bring the Louisiana dishes to the cookout.....
a chant is beginning........"set carbon free"
"The Fellowship For Scientific Truth" will have to drink a toast to big Al Gore..
Right you are, what's a Fellowship without a battle cry?!
Set Carbon Free!...Set Carbon Free!.....Set Carbon Free!
Message #18 - 01/05/08 12:52 PM
Set Carbon Free!...Set Carbon Free!...Set Carbon Free...
Can you hear it echoing through Red Mountain Pass...
clear to Silverton, Ouray, Durango and beyond?
People will stop, look up and wonder
"what was that incredible sound?"
And then, Phhhhht, we'll open another bottle.
GCB Stokes
Message #20 - 01/05/08 04:15 PM
Right you are my friend, and I love you little story. The battle cry of the "The Fellowship Of Scientific Truth" echoing through Red Mountain Pass clear to Silverton, Ouray, Durango and beyond! A child asks his dad, "Daddy, what is that sound coming from the mountains?" And the dad reply, "Son, that is the sound or righteousness, from "The Fellowship Of Scientific Truth!" It will be a sound growing ever larger, loud like thunder! A sound that makes Al Gore quiver with fear......
And Grilled nutria, will there be some Cajon Crawdads? emm, emm.....
njc17, hope you'll be there as well! And with your permission, I'd like to add your memberships to "The Fellowship For Scientific Truth." A group on this message board who speaking out against the anthropogenic global warming scam, and call for scientific truth. To expose the profiteering scam of Al Gore Inc. and the propaganda of our news media, and to expose the true he and our media ignores.

Message #21 - 01/05/08 08:44 PM
Dang, I didn't make the cut!

Message #22 - 01/05/08 09:27 PM
GCB ; go for it!!Truth!! that's the ticket!

GCB Stokes
Message #23 - 01/05/08 10:06 PM
I'm sorry.... After that fine photo you posted on the Cartoon Of The Day thread, you instantly became eligible for membership...... Not that I personally need to see those things, but is good for GeoPeter........ I was just kidding about those beach stories, I look at nothing but the hummingbirds with my binocular! ......

Founding Members

Breaking News

There has been two new membership added to the "The Fellowship Of Scientific Truth."

Effective immediately, Athena and njc17 are now official members.

Revised Membership for, "The Fellowship Of Scientific Truth." - January 5, 2008

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome both Athena and njc17 to the

Fellowship. Congratulations to you both.