Who Are We?

GreenWatchAmerica is an organization with a weekly newsletter dedicated to exposing the omissions, half-truths and outright lies of the radical Green Agenda, and to giving a voice to the Global Warming 'Deniers' throughout the scientific community.

You can sign up for our newsletter here.

You can email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 12 (December 10, 2008)

Featured Story:

As most of us know, the theory of global warming, very simply, is that unprecedented levels of man made greenhouse gasses are responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere of the earth, warming the planet to unprecedented levels. With that in mind, if you could place two headlines together, side by side, that would, at the very least, cause a modicum of doubt in the minds of scientists and politicians, wouldn't it be these two?

Climate Scientists Say 2008 Will be Coolest Year of the Decade

Greenhouse Gasses Hit Modern Day Highs

Of course, in the world of climate alarmism, there is no room for doubt, so when asked if this would be evidence that global warming is slowing, Dr. Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, replied, "Absolutely not. If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."

If decreasing temperatures are not a sign that global warming is slowing, I have just one question for you, Dr. Stott. What is?

To a degree (no pun intended), Dr. Stott is correct. A single year does not an trend make. But before this year, a single year was plenty for the climate alarmists to latch on to as evidence of an irreversible trend. Repeatedly, they would evoke 1998 as the hottest year of the century (even though their science was wrong; 1934 was actually hotter), and after virtually every major storm in the last ten years, someone would claim this was a sign of things to come.

Is it too much to ask that the alarmists at least notice their own double standards?

More Headlines:

Early Snowfalls in Europe Hit Historic Levels

Skepticism on Climate Change

Ten Global Warming Myths

U.K. Greens' Uncivil Disobedience

Energy Goals a Moving Target for States

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Something's in the water in Australia. At a UN climate summit in Poland, Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery warned.

Climate Opposition 'Suicidal': Flannery

Flannery expressed concern at Australia's seeming hesitance to fully embrace his end-of-the-world mantra, and then offered up this gem: "There is very little gain with going with the herd, if that results in a treaty that costs us the Great Barrier Reef and costs us most of our biodiversity."

Cost Australia the Great Barrier Reef? According to various sources, the Great Barrier Reef is five hundred thousand years old, with parts that go back as far as twenty million years. As the blog Australian Climate Madness puts it:

"The (Great Barrier Reef) has been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and has survived numbers of climate minima and maxima far worse than the conditions we are experiencing now, so why does everyone think that it's suddenly going to disappear?"

Also this week, Australian citizens were advised of a rather bizarre tactic for combating global warming:

Eat Camels to Protect Environment, Aussies Told

Just a few months earlier, Australians were also told to save the world by eating kangaroos.

The koalas must be nervous.

Monday, November 3, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 11 (November 3, 2008)

Featured Story:

In a long-hidden interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promised to "bankrupt" anyone wanting to build a coal plant in the United States. In the interview, conducted in January, Obama, in an unexpected burst of candor, admits that if his cap and trade carbon policy is put in place:
"If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." (to hear his confession, and to see how important coal is to the US economy, click here).
In the same interview, he said that he'll make energy costs "skyrocket." This confession comes on the heels of (well, actually 8 months prior to) Joe Biden's startling exchange on the campaign trail (which you can watch here) wherein he said, "We're not supporting clean coal. No coal plants here in America."

Let's not lose sight of the significance of these statements. Senators Biden and Obama are openly declaring their intentions to effectively shut down an entire industry, one that employs a great number of Americans, based on demonstrably faulty science that only 18% of Americans believe. To have this position, as they seem to, is to in a sense reject reality; the reality that the science on this issue is far from settled, and the reality that there are real people and families whose livelihoods depend upon these industries.

This is a common symptom of the radical green ideology. They advocate for new, drastic, draconian economic policies when the reality of an impending economic recession demands the opposite. They warn of apocalyptic, world shaking climate change when reality has clearly demonstrated otherwise, and their own projections are much more moderate. It is a demand for change at any price, without even considering that the real price when it comes to American workers and their families may be much too high.

This Week's Headlines

Steve Forbes Joins the Ever-Increasing List of Deniers

Anchorage Suffers One of Its Coldest Octobers Ever

Energy Independence: Can It Be Done?

What's Really Happening to the Greenland Ice Cap?

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

Often, this spot in the newsletter is dedicated to latest in a long line of doomsday predictions from a variety of sources. Well, we had another one this week, this time from Stephen Chu, who says that we can expect "disasters in orders of magnitude different from anything we've experienced thus far," and that cities like Tokyo, Mumbai, Buenos Aires, New York, and London will need to be protected from rising seas and violent weather behind sea walls.

One of the frequent responses of the radical green agenda, when confronted with the fact that are many many prestigious scientists reject the "consensus" on global warming, is to say that these scientists are not climatologists, so they should be ignored. Well, let's take a look at Mr. Chu's biography, shall we?
Stephen Chu, born 1948 in St. Louis, Missouri, is an American experimental physicist. He is known for his research in laser cooling and trapping of atoms, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. His current research is concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level. He is currently Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cellular Biology of University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Oh, so he's not a climatologist at all? In the words of Tom Nelson, whose blog is an indispensable resource for this newsletter and anyone interested in this issue:
"If alarmist Chu and climate realist Freeman Dyson are both physicists, I wonder why we're supposed to believe that Chu is "one of the world's leading climate and energy experts", while we're supposed to ignore Dyson because he's not a climatologist."
But reality doesn't mean anything to the radical greens, remember?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 10 (October 22, 2008)

Featured Story:

Much of the radical Green agenda calls for the immediate slowdown of industry throughout the world, or strict government intervention and regulation, both of which would have drastic and immediate effects on the national and global economies. So the question becomes, with our current economic crisis, what will become of the Green movement? Look no further than the first sentence from this story in the National Post:

"To prevent a financial crisis from turning into an economic calamity, the European Union has pulled the emergency brake on green policies."
(National Post)

Wind and solar power are both feeling the crunch. GE has realized that, in this time of economic uncertainty, their expensive clean energy projects just aren't worth it. Lawrence Solomon, National Post columnist and author of the best selling book The Deniers, predicted in a column last weekend that environmentalism as we know it is destined to collapse.

We tend to agree. As Lorne Gunter notes here, the last 30 years of warming have literally disappeared in a single year. The idea of a consensus has been almost completely debunked, as more and more scientists have exposed the folly of the science behind global warming theory. People are not fools, and will not sacrifice the already struggling economy to combat the phantom of global warming.

It brings to mind the famous quote from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." In the Green agenda's case, it seems they won't be able to fool anyone too much longer.

This Week's Headlines:
(Wall Street Journal)

Thais Lead Drive to Natural-Gas Cars (by instituting price caps on a nonprofitable product and imposing it on a nation whose infrastructure can't handle it)
(Wall Street Journal)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

First they gave me kidney stones. Then they took away my truffles. But at last, the global warming alarmists have got my attention:

Global Warming Leads to Tiger Attacks
(Yahoo News)

Next thing you know they'll be after my favorite football team. Oh wait...

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 9 (September 17, 2008)

Featured Story:

The Democrat-controlled Congress is on the verge of pushing through a disastrous energy "compromise." But the only thing compromised would be America's energy needs, with a permanent ban on drilling within 50 miles of shore--which is where the biggest and most accessible known deposits are!

And yet the Democrats--with the help of the media--are selling this as a "pro-drilling" bill, on the flimsy grounds that it allows some drilling beyond the 50 mile limit, where we are unlikely to get much oil.

This is a cynical ploy by Nancy Pelosi--a Green favorite--and other Democrats in Congress to trick voters into thinking they are serious about energy. The Institute for Energy Research published a handy primer outlining exactly why this plan is nothing more than a bait and switch:

A permanent ban out to 50 miles locks-up the largest known offshore energy reserves, including those off the coast of California, that are close to existing infrastructure and be produced the fastest.

The plan permanently bans access to 97 percent of the 10.527 billion barrels off the coast of California. It allows the State to decide whether to produce just 3 percent, or 287 million barrels, which is highly unlikely anyway. The remainder...10.24 billion barrels...is off limits.

Keeping the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off limits also denies access to large reserves located close to existing pipeline infrastructure. The plan keeps an estimated 3.65 barrels of oil and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off limits.

Perhaps worst of all, this plan appears to institute a 50-mile ban around energy-rich Alaskan shore--where no ban has ever been in place before and exploration is just beginning! So the Democrats "pro-drilling bill" doesn't open up the California oil that matters and it appears to shut down Alaska.

There's much more from IER, I suggest you read the whole thing here. Marlo Lewis on Planet Gore has a helpful summary as well.

The Democrats seem to be counting on the distractions of the election season to slip this one by. Don't let them. Tell your friends. Forward this email. Let's stick this "compromise" on an ice flow and let it drift out to sea.

This Week's Headlines:

Arctic Ice check: .5 million square kilometers more Arctic ice than last year; that's about the size of Spain!

Farmers concerned about unseasonably cold temperatures in Michigan, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wisconsin

DNC carbon offset program raises $18.34

Al Gore's Global Warming find and replace

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, sat down for an interview with the co-editor of 21st Century Socialism, a British web-magazine, exposing himself as as a fear-monger with no regard for science or accuracy:

"We are heading for catastrophic climate change; if we are lucky, tens of millions dead globally, if we are unlucky, hundreds of millions. There is a real possibility that human civilization doesn't make it to the end of the Century. I think you can avoid that, and therefore the question of green politics becomes fairly central. What that green politics is about, is planning and sharing. It really reverts to the fairly traditional agenda of the left. You can use market mechanisms to come up with some solutions, but the market won't do it without state direction, effectively."

We have to give Mr. Livingstone credit for one thing: At least he's up front about the fact that aggravating fears about "catastrophic climate change" plays right into the hands of those who promote socialism.

Here in the United States, green politicos strive to keep their socialist ambitions under wraps, preferring tactics like telling football fans that global warming could make their favorite teams, professional or college, relocate.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pigskin.

Friday, September 5, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 8 (September 5, 2008)

Featured Story:

What does John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin mean for his energy policy going forward? If Governor Palin's record is any indication, it means and drill drill drill for oil and natural gas, onshore, offshore, and in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge). For more detail, take a look at this clip on Youtube of Palin describing America's energy policy.

In January, Palin published an Op-Ed in the New York Times advocating against adding polar bears to the Endangered Species list due to the speculative effects of Global Warming.

Governor Palin is clearly a woman with a deep understanding of the energy issue and a terrific command of the facts. She notably differs with Senator McCain when it comes to drilling in ANWR Can she convince McCain to abandon his economically disastrous cap and trade policy?

We shall see.

This Week's Headlines:

Environmental Group Blames Global Cooling on Global Warm...Sorry, on Climate Change

North Pole an Island for First Time in History...but it still has 480,000km more ice than last year.

Kayaker Paddling to North Pole to Increase Global Warming Awareness Gets Stuck in the Ice

The Problem With Pickens

Unusual Snow in New Zealand

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

DailyTech reported earlier this week that the month of August was the first month since 1913 where no detectable sunspots were recorded. This is significant because climatologists now believe that solar magnetic activity, which causes sunspots, is an influencing factor in the earth's climate, and the recent decrease in solar activity would explain why global temperatures have decreased over the last eight years, in defiance of every projection touted by the radical green movement.

Apparently it was too significant. At the end of the month, the SIDC (Solar Influences Data analysis Center) decided to count two tiny solar specks that occurred on the 21st and 22nd of August; both were initially deemed too small to count. Why this retroactive change? The truth is that we don't know, but the connection between solar activity and global temperature pokes a giant hole in the theory of man-made global warming - a theory so important to those radical, agenda-driven Green types who want to stifle our economy to ineffectively combat an unproven, hypothetical boogieman.

Having said that, the truth is that the purpose of this newsletter is not to tell you what to believe: Our goal, to the contrary, is to simply present the facts on this important issue and leave the conclusions to you. So tell us, good reader, was the recent period of warming caused by an especially active sun that has since gone through an extended period of inactivity leading to almost uniformly reducing temperatures around the world...or are fat people causing global warming?

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 7 (August 26, 2008)

Global cooling is gaining momentum among prominent scientists.

A Mexican scientist predicts that due to diminished solar activity, earth will descend into a "Little Ice Age" lasting 60-80 years (translated from Spanish. Spanish speakers can find original story here).

Another scientist predicts a climate similar to the one earth had in the 1800's within 15 years.

Has it already started? 2008 on track to be coldest year this century.

Alaskan residents are calling 2008 "the year without summer."

Northern Wisconsin and Minnesota have seen temperatures in August drop below freezing.

In England, the harvest has been delayed by the unusually cool temperatures, while sales of thermal underwear have skyrocketed.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Nancy Pelosi, appearing on Meet the Press this week, stated that the surge in Iraq has been a failure because, among a handful of other reasons, the Maliki-led Government has failed to pass a carbon law.

No word on whether she feels the same way about the Democrat-led Congress.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 6 (August 12, 2008)

Oooops! The U.N. IPCC published predictions by its climate models: The UN Climate Models Got it Wrong: No Warming Yet This Century

The Washington Post writer Joel Achenbach fears the fashion of blaming every disaster on Global Warming threatens The True Faith. Global Warming Did It! Well, Maybe Not

But it won't stop as long as scientists in almost any field can win funding and feed media hysteria with some far-fetched global warming connection in their research:

Melting ice caps will lead to shellfish invasion but read the whole story: it's a good thing!

Canadian Govt: Global warming means more raw sewage in local water, maybe, someday. Meanwhile let's raise taxes to pay for it now!

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Usually this section features some sort of snarky comment but I'm afraid all the snark in world couldn't do justice to this column from the Guardian in the UK:

Oliver Tickell: On a Planet 4C Hotter, All We Can Prepare For is Extinction

"...the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.

"The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die."

You hear that? Billions. I don't think Mr. Tickell got Mr. Achenbach's memo.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 5 (August 6, 2008)

Featured Story:

Could John McCain be watching GreenWatch? McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes dropped all sorts of hints on Glenn Beck that McCain's proposed cap-and-trade system, which would implement an unprecedented tax increase to combat an issue based on shaky science, is about to go the way of the Dodo bird:

Forbes: Cap-And Trade Won't Get Very Far Under McCain

Our message is getting to him. As we said in our petition, McCain is an honorable man, and when presented with the facts about the unsettled science surrounding climate change and the stagnating effects enacting a cap-and-trade system would have on the American economy, he'll have no choice but to make the right decision and scrap his faulty plan before it even gets off the ground.

Now, more than ever, it's important to keep the pressure up. Tell your friends about us. Get them to sign our petition, which you can find online.

Other Stories:

Warming Won't Drive More Hurricanes, Study Says

(Discovery News)

Branson's Bogus Eco-drive

(Irish Business News)

Calculate Nancy Pelosi's Carbon Footprint


Canada Must Prepare for New Arctic Age

(Edmonton Journal)

Great Lakes Rising Again; Levels Close to Normal

(Detroit Free Press)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Laurie David is the ex-wife of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Seinfeld creator Larry David, and has become a self-appointed spokeswoman of sorts for the green agenda. She has also become a fairly reliable source of outlandish claims regarding the consequences and effects of global warming. She may have topped herself this week.

Laurie David: Global Warming to Blame for Daughter's Jellyfish Sting

I wish I could say I made that up, but she seems to believe it's true. I know what you're thinking: What's the big deal? Who cares what she says about some stupid jellyfish? Why even bother bringing it up?

The problems is that this story, and countless stories like it, re-enforce the false notion that the science of global warming is settled, and the only discussion left to have is how best to combat it. Sure, Ms. David's claims of jellyfish stings are silly and absurd, but not all such claims are that way. Sometimes they're far worse. For example, there's Johann Hari, writing in The Independent, a British newspaper, who believes global warming will have far greater repercussions than just a little redness and swelling. He compares it to a weapon of mass destruction kept by Al-Qaeda in a secret cave, and says that global warming:

"...doubles the intensity of hurricanes, causing them to drown a US city and kill nearly 2,000 people. It turns Spain and Australia dry in the worst droughts on record. It makes the oceans acidic, killing essential parts of the food chain. It is causes these acidic seas to rise and wash away whole nations like Bangladesh and Tuvalu. And if the machine is left switched on for too long, it will drown London and New York and Lagos and Kinshasa too."

These claims are utterly preposterous: Hurricanes are not made stronger by global warming, Australia has had record rainfall in some regions this year, Bangladesh is actually gaining land, and New York is in no real threat of being drowned, unless Mr. Hari is confusing reality with the 2003 blockbuster, "The Day After Tomorrow."

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 4 (July 29, 2008)

Featured Story:

Much has been written about the choice that developing nations have when it comes to global warming; a choice between curbing your emissions or growing your economy. India, which, according to the CIA World Fact Book has more than 1.1 billion people, has made its choice:

In India, Growth Trumps Sustainability

(Lawrence Solomon, National Post)

As detailed by Lawrence Solomon, author of "The Deniers," India examined the facts and the needs of its people and came to the conclusion that continuing to develop their economy in order to combat poverty and starvation was priority number one. Stifling their economy to combat global warming somehow didn't make their final to-do list. But why?

"'No firm link between the changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established,' the report states matter-offactly, before proceeding to list the areas in which the science is not settled.

"Parts of India have warmed, the Action Plan explains, and parts have cooled. Monsoon rains have increased in some areas and decreased in others. There have been no marked long-term trends in droughts or floods. Some regions have had a greater and others a lesser frequency of severe storms. Neither do the Himalayan glaciers demonstrate any consistent trend."

Rather than put its people and economy at risk, India decided it was in its best interests to ignore the climate-change hullabaloo, after examining the facts and coming to the conclusion that the science was dubious at best.

In this regard, India is not alone. Several prominent scientists and politicians spoke out against the global warming 'consensus' this week:

Professor Kunihiko Takeda (vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University and one of the world's leading authorities on both uranium enrichment and recycling):

"Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot."

Dr. Muriel Newman (Established the New Zealand Centre for Political Debate):

"Around the world, as controversy over climate change continues to grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled.

In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in order to prevent 'catastrophic' warming, the world continues to cool. That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to "save the planet" is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes."
Professor Bob Carter [Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia)]:
"No significant increase in global average temperature has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide over the same period of about 5%...
There are alternative, very soundly based views on the effects of carbon dioxide and warming of the climate.
A human effect on global climate change has not yet been distinguished and measured . . . meanwhile, global temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does, and a phase of cooling has succeeded the mild late 20th century warming...
Natural climate change will continue with some of its likely manifestations, such as sea-level rises and coastal change in particular locations. Adaptation to that will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of the world's energy."
Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Professor of Physics, Emeritus, was the director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007):
"There are so many times the Earth was warmer than now, or colder than now. We are not affecting the climate change."
Lord Nigel Lawson (British politician, was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher):
"The one thing that is absolutely clear about the science is that it isn't certain, far from it."
The consensus is breaking down because no matter how much the global warming agenda-setters may want us to be, people are not sheep, to be led around and told what to think and what to say. You can only lie to us for so long before the truth exposes your movement for what it is; a dogma based on faulty science and ulterior motives.
Other Headlines:

(Lenore Taylor, The Australian)

(Jessica Cheng, Popular Science)

(Mairi Beautyman, treehugger.com)

Penn and Teller on Carbon Credits

(Warning: Strong language used for comedic effect)

(John Boudreau, San Jose Mercury News)

(Christopher Booker, The Telegraph)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Have you ever noticed that the doomsday predictions of the global warming advocates never seem to come true? And that when these predictions turn out to be wrong, they're either completely ignored or only mentioned in passing by the media? We've got two tremendous examples this week of precisely this phenomenon First, courtesy of Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Australia, we learn that as recently as last year, people were pointing to Perth, Australia and its historically low water levels as evidence that Global Warming was already rearing its ugly head (One even ventured to say that he thought Perth stood a good chance of becoming the 21st Century's first "ghost metropolis"). Unfortunately for those experts, they got the one thing they didn't count on happening this year: Rain in Perth. Now the water levels are at an eight year high, and even Scooby Doo couldn't find a ghost in their thriving metropolis.

Along those same lines, we've heard prediction after prediction after prediction about how the polar ice caps were absolutely definitely, no doubt about it inevitably going to melt away into nothingness this summer. Of course, as we've written about in this very space, they haven't. Not even close. You'd think that would put some humility into these Chicken Littles.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

As it turns out, scientists have been making this very prediction for the last hundred years. First in the 20's and 30's, then again 40 years later:

New York Times, 1969: Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea

This doesn't mean that any claim made by a contemporary scientist that was once made by an earlier one should be automatically dismissed (though most new hypotheses should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism, just as scientists are taught to treat them). But when those scientists are immediately claiming that their unproven and untested claims should influence public policy, it's important for all of us, scientist, politician, and citizen alike, to step back and carefully examine not just the science, but all the factors and consequences of our actions. That's called being responsible. Our leaders could use that trait nowadays.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 3 (July 24, 2008)

Featured Story:
The Global Warming "consensus" is shattering right before our very eyes.

Of course it was inevitable that this would happen. One agenda, one overzealous movement cannot control all of the science and all of the discourse forever, especially not when the facts start to lead people to the opposite conclusion. As Lord John Maynard Keynes, a British economist, once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

David Evans is a rocket scientist who served as a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office for 6 years. When he started in 1999, he bought into all the doomsday hype, and devoted himself to the study of the issue. By 2007, "the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming."

  1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
  2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
  3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
  4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Read the entire article here. It's well worth your time, and shatters almost every myth about global warming you've ever heard.

I say almost, because there are a few topic he simply doesn't have time to get into. Like hurricanes, for example. Fortunately, there are other scientists around to pick up the slack:

A staple of the Al Gore (more on him later) fear mongering platform has been to convince people that more global warming equals more, stronger hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, oppressive heat, frigid cold... Anything bad you can possibly think of, Al Gore would like to blame on Global Warming. So tell me, Al Gore: What do you have against kittens?
Sure this is good fun, but it leads me to a more serious point. Al Gore and his Goracles have been spending a lot of time trying to convince us that more warming will inevitably lead to disaster. But isn't it just as likely that a warmer earth will actually be good, not only for humans, but for all life? In earth's history, warmer climates have invariably led to lush, full flora and thriving fauna, and colder climates, well...500 years ago, the Viking colonies on Greenland died out because the climate grew too cold to grow crops there. 230 years ago, New York Harbor froze over, letting people walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Throughout history, cold has been worse for life, and heat has been better. Why has this suddenly changed now?
More Headlines :
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
Who else could it go to but the man himself? In a speech on July 17, Al Gore demanded that the United States, in the next 10 years, abandon all of the electricity generated by fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal etc.). Gore's demands are almost impossible and would be incredibly expensive to implement, but who cares about petty things like reality when "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk...The future of human civilization is at stake."

Gore's claims are becoming more and more hyperbolic as more and more Americans begin to realize just how absurd this global warming nonsense really is. In fact, it's entirely possibly that Al Gore himself realizes how absurd these claims really are. After all, he and his crew showed up for his speech on the environment in two Lincoln Towncars and an SUV, which were left idling with the AC cranked up for 20 minutes while he gave his speech. His mansion in Tennessee produces a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average American home. In Gore's case, it really is do as he says, not as he does.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 2 (July 15, 2008)

If you've been paying even cursory attention to the Global Warming issue this year, you've probably heard some activists claim that this might be the summer where the polar ice caps completely disappear (for example, check out this story from the Sydney Morning Herald, or this one from AFP). With all this 'doom speak,' we thought you might want to take a look at the state of the North Pole as of Saturday, July 12, and judge for yourself:

Arctic Ice Looking Pretty Solid

From the same site, we find this graph, which shows that there is, in fact, more ice covering the Arctic Circle this year than there was last year.

This is only one of many recent examples of global warming activists making bold, frightening claims about the repercussions of global climate change, with little or no accountability to science or fact. For an exhaustive list of the possible changes some have attributed to global

warming, click here. Just yesterday, Texas University researchers added another to the list:

Global Warming May Increase Kidney Stones

Time Magazine called this "some of the most compelling science to date linking climate change with adverse public-health effects." Unfortunately, Time Magazine has not noted the real life consequences anti-global warming legislation has had, particularly on the world's poor.

In England they've been ahead of the curve in enacting this kind of legislation, and subsequently way ahead in observing some of the disastrous effects of it:

Global Warming Laws Hit the Poor Hardest
(Janet Daley, The Telegraph)

Why do we so rarely hear about these real life ramifications, when we are so frequently inundated with the purely hypothetical projections that are so often disproven by science? And why do we so rarely hear about it when they are disproven?

More Headlines:

Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In
(Texas News Analyst)

Global Warming, Hurricane Link Contested By Same Scientist Who Promoted It
(Curtis Krueger, St. Petersburg Times)

Global Warming: Old News?


Most Egregious Claim of the Week

We here at GreenWatch do not dismiss the possibility of man-made global climate change as just that; a possibility. It seems to us that science has revealed many many more possibilities as the cause of some of this warming, as well as the possibility that the earth really isn't warming abnormally at all. We believe this topic deserves a fair and honest debate on the scientific merits. Instead, we get a United States Congressman telling a group of high school students that Global Warming caused everything from a 1993 conflict in Somalia to Hurricane Katrina:

Congressman: Global Warming Caused Black Hawk Down, Crisis in Darfur, Hurricane Katrina
(Josiah Ryan, CNS News)

It is our goal at GreenWatch to counter the hyperbole of Mr. Markey and activists like him by offering facts and candid analysis. We hope, if you like what we do, that you'll take the time to tell your friends about us. They can sign up to receive the newsletter here.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

GreenWatch Newsletter 1 (July 5, 2008)

The glaciers are breaking up!

No not THOSE glaciers, they are doing fine. In fact, in California they're growing:

(CBC News)

No, I mean the glacier of conventional wisdom on global warming/climate change is, if not actually breaking up, then at least severely endangered by the accelerating accumulation of contrary evidence.

Featured Story:

One of the central conceits of the Radical Eco-Movement is that climate change - any climate change - equals bad and status quo equals ideal. Oddly enough, this position was rarely voiced when humanity was engrossed in an ice age. No, the global warming promoters would have you believe that this current environment is the absolute ideal one, not only for humans but for all forms of life. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us), these positions are often not consistent with elementary school science. For instance, you might remember learning
way, way back in second grade or so that more carbon dioxide, rather than being a vicious pollutant, is actually good for green and growing things. Well, it seems some scientists in Germany just remembered that:

German Scientists Believe High Levels of CO2 May Be Good For Plants

Stunning, I know! For more information on the potential benefits to the earth of a warmer climate and more CO2, you can read "In Praise of CO2" by Lawrence Solomon of the National

Post and author of The Deniers.

More Headlines:

NY Times: Greenland's Ice Sheet May Not Be Melting Afterall
(Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times)

Hypothesis: Global Warming = Mass Neurosis?
(Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal)

Confirmed: Australian Psychiatrists Identify First Case of "Climate Change Delusion"
(Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, Australia)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Laurie David, writing for the Huffington Post, claims that the recent sighting of two polar bears on Iceland is an extremely rare occurence. Citing the expertise of her flyfishing guide, she attributes the migration to global warming. Via Planet Gore and, of all things, Seaworld, we learn that this is false: Polar bears have been seen in Iceland during heavy ice years (See line 3, b in the Seaworld link). In fact, Icelandic farmers know to shoot a Polar Bear on sight, or else suffer decimation of their livestock.