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, May 27, 2009

CFC's Responsible for ozone depletion?

GreenWatch reader Wallace wrote in this week, questioning what has become the common assumption that CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) deplete the ozone layer.
"Thank you for bringing up the subject of CFC propelled medications in your article.

This is a serious health problem for a great many people. Not only are the new inhalers less effective, they cause irritation that is not good for the patient and they are much more expensive.

The “do-gooders” in congress are causing egregious harm to those who need the inhalers and they are doing it absolutely needlessly. They are too proud to admit what many of us now know. CFC’s do not harm the “ozone layer” because they can never reach it. Scientists now know that the thinning of the ozone at the poles is a direct result of material ejected from the sun in solar flares entering the atmosphere at the Earth’s magnetic poles combined with the fact that less ozone is produced in polar regions.

The so called “ozone layer” (actually just an area of higher ozone levels) is produced by radiation from the sun interacting with oxygen (O2) in the outer atmosphere. The ozone molecules then migrate down to lower levels because they are heavier than O2 molecules. Eventually they disintegrate before they reach lower levels because ozone is unstable. Two ozone (O3) molecules will react to make three O2 molecules or they will react with some other molecule, like chlorine (which is constantly being released from the oceans).

The stratosphere (so named because it lacks the strong currents of the troposphere and therefore “stratifies”) tends to separate air into its constituent gases in layers. Carbon dioxide, for example, is a little heavier than oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) molecules (1.38 times as heavy as O2) and its presence (as a percentage) declines with altitude until it becomes undetectable. This is important because CFC molecules are much heavier than carbon dioxide. In fact, the most common CFC (R-12) is almost THREE TIMES as heavy as carbon dioxide and nearly FOUR TIMES heavier than oxygen (O2) MOLECULES.

If carbon dioxide can’t get up to the ozone layer, how can the heavier CFC’s get there? In fact, CFC’s have never been detected at those high altitudes.

CFC’s are still some of the very best refrigerants and their being phased out has cost the public billions of dollars.

Just one more way that our Congress is looking out for our best interest!"
(PG): I cannot vouch for the veracity of Wallace's claims, but I am intrigued. Any GreenWatch readers know more about this issue? Email me at greenwatchamericaATgmailDOTcom.

Monday, May 18, 2009

What To Expect From Renewable Energy

Via Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Windfarms, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota details why President Obama's plan to make the U.S. more like Spain when it comes to renewable energy subsidies and jobs will wind up an economic disaster:

Monday, May 11, 2009

This Week's Headlines

How About A Real Public Debate?

Antarctic Sea Ice Only Melting Where Manned Stations Located

Honolulu's Switch the Hybrid Buses stalled by Reality of Costs

Obama's Stance on Polar Bears Identical to Bush's, Palin's

Sea Salt Holds Clues to Climate Change

North Atlantic Ocean Warming Not Due to Climate Change

Is the Globe Warming or Cooling?

A License to Tell Warming Lies

More Bigger Spiders May Be In Store

Just What is Waxman-Markey For?

Quote of the Week

AA Gill in his review of the English Restaurant Fino:
"The truth is, environmentalists are just not attractive. They’re not winning, engaging, amusing or empathetic. They are ranty, repetitive, patronising, demanding, deaf, weirdly bonkers and smelly. Environmentalists are the nutters with degrees in composting who sit next to you on the bus. But that’s not their real impediment. The real killer thing is the schadenfreude: the naked, transparent, hand-rubbing glee with which they pass on every shame, sadness and terror. No disaster is too appalling or imminent that the green movement can’t caper and keen with a messianic glee."
Please, please read the whole thing.

GreenWatch Newsletter 26

Featured Story:

A story hit the wire this week that shattered the conventional wisdom scientists had been peddling for years, about a dramatic climatic event that allegedly led to the extinction of the dominant species on the planet. This version of events had become common knowledge, from the most dedicated scientists to Hollywood to children. And now, it seems, it could all be wrong:

The demise of the dinosaurs probably occurred 300,000 years after a giant meteor struck what is now Mexico, scientists said, casting doubt on a popular theory that the impact triggered a mass extinction.

What?! As a child, I was (to state it lightly) obsessed with dinosaurs, to the point where the first word I ever read was "Brontosaurus." And for as long as I can remember, the devastating impact of that Mexican meteor was the generally accepted reason for the dinosaur's extinction. But now, thanks to advances in science, we're learning more about the natural processes that led to the extinction.

And you know what? The authors of this study aren't being ostracized, bullied and called "deniers." Pro-meteor groups aren't demanding the scientists lose their funding and be regarded as the lunatic fringe. They are simply using the best tools at their disposal to discover the scientific truth of the situation.

There was another recently released report which this time cast some doubt on the impacts of global warming - specifically whether or not the historically low water levels in the Great Lakes were caused by human activities. Green Groups frequently cited the lower levels as a result of human activity and a portent of things to come. Henry Payne at Planet Gore offers an assortment of news stories that claim just this:

April, 2003, Detroit News: "A group of scientists predicted that global warming will wreak havoc on the Great Lakes region . . . the largest single concentration of fresh water in the world."

October, 2003, Detroit Free Press: "The idea that warming has benefits may be a particularly tough sell to Michiganders already disturbed by what happens when the Great Lakes drop near historic lows."

April, 2007, Detroit News: "Data from a new United Nations report on climate change . . . strengthens scientific opinion that Michigan will see other dramatic effects in the coming decades: lower Great Lakes water levels, a dramatically receding Lake St. Clair. . . . "

May, 2008, Detroit News: "A report released by an environmental group warns that unless Congress acts to curb global warming, Great Lakes water levels will drop up to 3 feet; beaches will close more often, and fish and animal populations will decline."

It turns out these warnings and reports were almost entirely wrong:

A steady drop in water levels in Lake Michigan/Huron over the first half of this decade resulted from natural causes, not man-made ones, according to U.S. and Canadian researchers, noting that the past 18 months of rising waters could be an indication the lakes are headed back to normal levels.

Researchers working for the International Joint Commission this week released the findings of a two-year study on the St. Clair River and the amount of water running through it out of Lake Michigan/Huron. The study was launched to answer questions by lake shore residents who had watched the steady drop of water levels in recent years.

The study found that Mother Nature has been behind the changes under way in the last eight years. "It's not ongoing; it has definitely stabilized," said Ted Yuzyk, the Canadian co-chair of the study board, who added the changes have reversed in the last 18 to 24 months. "And it's not human driven. This is more natural."

This was a two-year, comprehensive study (you can read the PDF here) with no political bias except to find the truth. Sadly, and predictably, green groups were up in arms over it.

The commission is not calling for any corrective action in the Lake Huron-St. Clair River now. And that's not sitting well with members of the Canadian environmental group GBA Foundation, which funded its own study in 2004 which put the blame on human activity.

"The fact that (the report) completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing," said Roy Schatz, GBA's founding president, in a press release.

The report does not completely dismiss the enormous increase in outflow - it attributes it to a natural cause, using scientific evidence. It is no different than the new report on the dinosaur extinction, except that more people were more certain for a longer time that the dinosaurs were, in fact, killed by that meteor and the effects of its impact than have ever been certain about man made global warming.

For science to work properly, it needs to be allowed to be wrong, so that scientists can learn from their mistakes. The problem with the Radical Green Movement is that it can't ever allow for the possibility that it could be wrong. The whole movement is based on the necessity of immediate action. That leaves them little choice but to attack and belittle deniers; which is as unscientific a response as there is.

We Need Your Help!

We need your help to spread our message far and wide. Now signing up for this newsletter is easier than ever. Forward this email or direct ten of your friends to this webpage, where they can sign up to receive the newsletter themselves. We're also on facebook and twitter.

More Headlines:

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

Global Sea Ice Nears Record High

Is New Zealand Becoming the Next Denier Nation?

Another Part of Global Warming Theory Toppled

Cosmic Rays Too Wimpy to Influence Climate?

Read more headlines and the Quote of the Week on the GreenWatchBlog.

The Reader's Corner:

Write to the Reader's Corner at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. Be sure to include your name and where you're from.

Margaret S. in CA: Just thought it worth mentioning that two weeks ago there were two cold temperature records broken at March Air Base in Riverside, CA. Last week, interestingly, there was one high temperature record broken. And this week there has been another cold record broken.

I've lived around the Inland Empire area in Southern California most of the time since 1942. Through the 40s and 50s the summer temperatures were almost always higher than they are in more recent years since the massive development has raised the normal summer daytime humidity from a typical 9 percent in the late 40s to about 20 percent now. The number of days with temperature readings above 100 are very few compared to the earlier decades.

I remember the folks coming back to work after lunch on June 14, 1959 in San Bernardino telling us that the temperature was 114. That never happens any more.

Something suspicious that's happening during the past year or two is that the official daytime summer temperature in Banning, where I live, has stopped being a few degrees under the readings of my outdoor thermometers and started being a few degrees higher. They used to report what my mother called "chamber of commerce" temperatures---that moderated undesirable extremes. Now they're apparently on the Gore bandwagon and inflating them.

Cy H, PA: I have read historical books regarding global climate. Earth has been in warming/cooling cycles since man has recorded. Why are we so alarmed now when history tells us it is just a cycle. Alarmists are trying to have us waste funds to accomplish something that does not need done.

Al Gore started this latest round of "Global Warming" talk and he needs to read history books.

Regarding last week's featured story, Alida L. writes: I want to know how it's possible/legal/moral to disallow someone a chance to speak. Mr. Gore must be so proud.

Have something to say? Write to the Reader's Corner at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

The most egregious claim this week isn't a claim at all, but rather an egregious judicial action that will hurt farms and farm workers throughout California. A judge ruled that water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta be shut off due to a US Fish and Wildlife Service report which declared the delta smelt a threatened species of fish.

The problem here is that nobody knows if turning off the pumps will have any effect at all on the delta smelt population. What they do know is that shutting off the pumps will have a dramatic impact on the agricultural business. Less food will be produced and farm workers will lose their jobs.

And this, in a nutshell, is the core of our problem with the Radical Green Movement. Al Gore and the Goracles want us to make dramatic sacrifices to our economic well-being in order to maybe counteract a possibly man-made phenomenon that may or may not actually be happening. And they don't care who they hurt in the process.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Quote of the Week

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

-Tom Lauria, lawyer representing the investment firm Perella Weinberg.

This Week's Headlines

Climate Model Predictions: It's Time For a Reality Check

Shock: Global Temperatures Driven By US Postage Charges?

Women, Children, Feeling Effects of Climate Change?

AARI Predicts Arctic Cooling/Ice Recovery to Continue

Lawns Will Become Sign of Moral Decadence Because of Climate Change?

Oh Dear God, Please Don't Tell Me Chocolate is Killing the Planet!

And finally:

New York Rode Out Big Wave in 300 B.C.

But how could that happen, 2200 years before the Industrial Revolution?

No truth to the report that it looked just like this, minus the buildings:

GreenWatch Newsletter 25 (April 27, 2009)

Featured Story:

The Democrats are proposing a bill aimed at limiting carbon dioxide and other pollutants linked to Global Warming. Al Gore testified before a hearing of the Energy and Commerce committee and was up to his usual shenanigans.

But this time he had some help from House Democrats. Republicans pushed for Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and global warming denier, to testify along with Mr. Gore at the hearing last Friday. The democrats refused to allow Lord Monckton to testify. Again, Gore and the Democrats chose to muzzle dissent rather than allow a fair and open debate of the issues.

But can you really blame them? Mr. Gore knows that public sentiment has turned against his pet cause/cash cow. Recent polling data found that just 34%, barely one in three Americans believe global warming is caused by human activity.

The reason that sentiment has turned so swiftly against Gore and his Goracles is simple: He's wrong. Look at the graph at the top of this article. Temperatures have been declining for the last 10 years, while CO2 emissions have continued to climb. Gore has conveniently ignored the fact that reality has spent the last ten years defying his "settled science." The more people hear the holes in the global warming theory, the more apt they are to reject the "solutions" proposed by Gore and Co. That's why they refused to allow Monckton to testify.

GreenWatch reader Jean Jones alerted me to this fascinating video explaining the Svensmark Cosmic Ray Global Cooling theory from scientist Martin Enghoff of the Danish Space Institute.

And it's not just Republicans who have concerns about this bill. Visit the blog to watch a leading Democrat voice his concerns about some of the industry destroying results this bill could have.

From now on, the "Quote of the Week" can be read on the GreenWatch blog. Click here to read a great zinger from Newt Gingrich.

More Headlines:

Selling the Green Economy

Bjorn Lomborg: Don't Waste Time Cutting Emissions

Gingrich: Climate Bill Will Punish Americans

Prince Charles to Leave 53 Ton Carbon Footprint on "Green Initiative" Tour

NBC's Today Warns of Doom and Gloom Icecap Melt

Read more headlines on the GreenWatch Blog.

The Reader's Corner:

The Reader's Corner is your chance to sound off on issues related to global warming. Found an interesting article you'd like us to cover? Don't like something we wrote in the featured story? Want to tell Al Gore where he can shove his latest powerpoint presentation? Email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. Please include your name and where you're from.

James F. Lea: "Offshore Oil: Without energy our economy will tank regardless of horrendous effects of overspending by Government. The administration decries offshore oil as destroying environment.

"When I took my Dad on a party fishing boat off the Texas Gulf coast, they ONLY stopped at offshore platforms some miles offshore. We would stop almost at arms length to the platforms before dropping lines. It was the only place there were fish and plenty of them. The seaweed , crustaceans, smaller fish, etc around the platforms make them fish generators. Far for destroying the environment. Try it.. you will see."

George McClellan: "I just discovered your blogspot, put the link in my 'favorites' and moved it to the top of the list. Can't tell you how pleased I am to see a concerted effort to counter the lies and distortions of the left. This isn't about climate change; it's about acquiring power, just as gun control isn't about guns, but about control. Over the past decades we have been subjected to more and more attempts to tell us what we can and cannot do. This goes even to smoking bans in various places, which may seem innocuous in itself, but which may spread to a ban on smoking in our homes. I'm a non-smoker, incidently. However, the handwriting is on the wall and the 'liberals' are on the march. They want a completely controlled population, and it seems that we've been bending to their will. It's time to stop them. Keep up the good work."

And Cyndi Pavia offers up some valuable advice for all of us who have to deal with Al Gore devotees: "I've tried a little experiment and had results with some potential. I've challenged some "greenies" who believes in made made climate change. I ask them if they've given up their home and car air conditioners, their clothes dryer, their dishwasher, their hair dryer, and whatever else I can think of that involves the convenient use of electricity. None so far have. I point out its something that they can do NOW to save the planet and that if all the multitudes of people who believe in man made climate change did it NOW, they would make a HUGE IMPACT without having to wiat for Obama to impose laws! Boy oh boy, does it take the wind out of their sails. If they defend not giving up all those things, and leading by example, then they are hypocrites (which we know is only slightly less bad than being a racist!). At a minimum, in precious few cases, it might actually make them THINK for a moment. Maybe we should spread the word that we should challenge any and every 'greenie' we have the displeasure of being preached to by. I think this idea has potential. Please give it some thought."

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Henry Waxman, Democrat Representative from California. Following Mr. Gingrich's testimony, Mr. Waxman accused Gingrich of using more of the "old scare tactics." He continued, "When American people hear the statements you have made today, they get scared, which I think is exactly what is intended."

What a joke. Mr. Waxman, if what Gingrich said is just more "scare tactics" then pray tell sir, what would you call a movement that warned of billions of deaths, a billion homeless, devastated continents, killer jellyfish, alligators in the Thames, the bubonic plague, cannibalism, the earth exploding (opens PDF file), the spread of HIV, the death of the Loch Ness monster, and extremely severe acne?

Edited by Patrick Gallagher

Published by Richard Vigilante

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Quote of the Week

Via Edward John Craig at Planet Gore, Newt Gingrich and Henry Waxman get into a tiff over the Democrats' plans to regulate (see: punish) energy industries to promote the latest "Green" cause du jour:

Gingrich: "We didn’t build the trans-continental railroad by punishing stage coaches."
Waxman: "Well I am glad you’re not in charge of foreign policy."
Gingrich: "I don’t think of the American people in the same terms as foreign dictators."

Friday, April 24, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 24 (April 20, 2009)

Spread the Word:

We here at GreenWatchAmerica are excited and delighted to announce that, starting today, we are launching the GreenWatchAmerica blog.

Every GreenWatch Newsletter will be archived on the website one week after its released. The site already features every previous installment of the newsletter. We will update the blog regularly. We will have web-exclusive content on the blog, and email-exclusive content in our newsletter. Be sure to bookmark the site and check it regularly.

We are also now on facebook! Become a fan of GreenWatchAmerica. Point your friends to our facebook page.

But it doesn't end there. GreenWatchAmerica is also on Twitter! Every time the blog is updated, our Twitter account, GWAmerica, will be updated with a link.

It doesn't end here for GreenWatch. We will constantly be improving and upgrading the website. We also would love to hear suggestions from our readers. Email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com and let us know what features you'd like to see on our site.Part of the reason we're expanding like this is because we got so many emails from our readers clamoring for it. Now spread the word to your friends and family. Tell them to read the blog, sign up for our newsletter, and follow us on facebook and Twitter.

Featured Story:

John Fund in the Wall Street Journal reports on a brand new documentary, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" that will have its premier tomorrow (Wednesday) at Rachel Carson Elementary School in the suburbs of Seattle.

Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor.

The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. The ban was finally reversed by the World Health Organization only after decades of debate. The two Irish filmmakers argue that if Al Gore's advice to radically reduce carbon emissions is followed, it would condemn to poverty two billion people in the world who have yet to turn on their first light switch.

The filmmakers previously made "Mine Your Own Business," another documentary that focused on a small, incredibly poor village in Romania that desperately wanted to open a new gold mine. The new mine would have helped alleviate the town's nearly 70% unemployment rate. Radical environmentalists, predictably, and unfortunately, would have none of it. And it was yet another example of environmentalists getting the science wrong, and hurting people in the process.

To see the trailers for both films, visit the GreenWatch Blog.

The Radical Green Movement far too frequently get the science wrong, but the real damage comes when foolish policy based on that bad science is implemented. The latest example of that bad policy? One need look no further than the President of the United States. To read more about Obama's railroad blunder, click here to visit the GreenWatch blog.

Know someone who'd like to receive our newsletter? They can sign up by clicking this link.

More Headlines:

U.S. Power Company to Tap Solar Energy in Space

Talking Climate Change with Anthony Watts

Hurricane Predicted to be Down in 2009

Stay Slim to Save the Planet

Energy and the Environment: Myths and Facts

There are even more headlines on the GreenWatch Blog. To see them, click here.

The Reader's Corner:

From David, who's fed up in Michigan:

"I am so fed up with the Global Warming lies. There is NO Global Warming, it's just a way for the Government to take more control over all of us. It is the middle of April and we have not had a day with the temperature over 50 degrees during the day and above 40 degrees during the night. It has been getting colder for the last 15 years, not warmer. We long for 75 or 80 degree weather."

Daniel writes:

"I've just read your story from the Washington Times about the "Waxman Markey" bill, allowing anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part" due to government inaction to combat greenhouse gas emissions to sue the federal government.

Does this mean that the converse is also true, that anyone who suffers harm due to government action on the environment could file suit?

I've been waiting for this!!! I'd love to see a RICO lawsuit against the "environmentalists" who have blocked every attempt to expand production and distribution of energy within our borders."


"As to the "Most Egregious Claim of the Week", no surprise it came from Andy
Rooney, but where is the proof that we are running out of oil? I've never
seen this ridiculous claim substantiated. As with everything else these
global warming nuts claim, it's bogus. If the climate did not change
periodically as it was made to do by powers far greater than man, wouldn't
I be walking my dinasours in the woods every morning rather than my dogs?

"Reigning in pollution is one thing, and striking a balance between our
industrial genius and our beautiful landscape is important, but these
people want us to stop driving, stop heating our homes, they are even going
after livestock so that we stop eating animal products. Anyone who does not
see the obvious agenda here is a fool."

But the e-mail of the week comes from Dave, responding to the same Andy Rooney piece with just four words: "Bring on the iceberg..."

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

The nominees are:

Stephen Chu, Energy Secretary of the United States.

"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear."

Scientists and Hunters in Germany

The boar population has increased recently, and the new boars are wreaking havoc in cities throughout the country. The reason cited for the increase?

"Scientists and hunters blame global warming for a surge in the boars' reproduction rate, now estimated at over 300 per cent a year, which means 100 boars can grow into almost 10,000 within five years."

Of course it is.

Researchers in Yellowstone National Park

In an impressive display of double talk, they argued that Global Warming has destroyed the food supply of the local Grizzly Bear, while worrying about the increase and spread of the bear's population.

And the winner is:

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Happy Earth Day!

Let's say the Radical Green Agenda is right about Global Warming... It won't be all bad:

Monday, April 20, 2009

Obama's Foolish Rail Plan

The New York Times reports on President Obama's new plan to build a "high speed" rail system across the U.S. During his speech outlining the proposal, he said:
“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century, a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”
Too bad President Obama's plan will do practically none of those things.

Over at The Corner, Richard Nadler outlines 5 reasons President Obama's plan is a misguided one. Of interest to GreenWatch Readers:
3) If you (unlike this author) believe that greenhouses gases are a problem, you DON’T WANT a shared passenger/freight system. One of the reasons why Europe is doing such a wretched job of complying with Kyoto is that it does only 10% of its freight by rail, as opposed to 51% in the U.S. Europe moves more people by rail, and more freight (i.e., heavier stuff) on trucks. Our intermodal system of truck-to-rail container transfer helps account for the fact that freight emissions of greenhouse gases are 155 grams per ton mile in the U.S. compared to 193 grams per ton mile in Europe.
David Freddoso elaborates on NRO.

The Oregonian points out the flaws in Obama's plan from the other end of the political spectrum.

In the end, the trains he's proposing are not modern upgrades, but retreads of past train systems that have already failed. Which is funny, because some might argue that "retreads that have already failed" are the exact words they'd use to describe his entire economic plan.

Featured Story Continued

Watch the trailers for both films below:

This Week's Headlines

The GOP & Climate Skepticism

Ford Fears Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme Will Drive Jobs Out of the Country

Obama Flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo Floods

China Considers Setting Targets for Carbon Emissions

Will Global Warming Make Future Generations Worse Off? (No!)

1970's Lifestyle 'Protects' Planet

Third World Stove Soot is Target in Climate Fight
(How dare those poor people cook their food!)

Global Warming Heretics Increase in Numbers

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

Stephen Chu, Energy Secretary of the United States.

"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear."

But he didn't stop there:

"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous."

We announce the winner of the Most Egregious Claim of the Week on this blog every week. To see the other nominees, sign up for our weekly newsletter here.

Monday, April 13, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 23 (April 13, 2009)

Featured Story:

The Washington Times brings word of disastrous new provision in the House climate bill that would allow anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part" due to government inaction to combat greenhouse gas emissions to sue the federal government.
Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.
"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The bill was written by two Democrats; Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Though the payouts for such lawsuits are minimal, capped at a total of 1.5 million dollars per year, what it could do is force the government to take action against climate change at the order of a judge, allowing activist judges to decide a crucial portion of economic policy for the entire country.

Of course, there's a part of me that sees a story like this and says, "alright, bring on the lawsuits. Let's see those claims of settled science exposed as the frauds they are in a court of law."

Perhaps Waxman and Markey are seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the entire global warming movement and this is their last, desperate ploy to get something done. Americans still aren't drinking the kool-aid, funds for climate projects are being cut, and former pro-anthropomorphic global warming propagandists are starting to realize that The Deniers may well have a point.

I propose a second bill: Allow citizens like you and me to sue the federal government and private businesses for the mental anguish of having to deal with this incessant campaign to convince us the world is going to end because of the success of industry - a campaign that was built on lies and that, fortunately, seems to be on the verge of failing.

More Headlines:

George Will and the Sea-Ice Controversy: Was He More Correct That Thought?

Fewer Showers to Help Global Warming

Study: Biofuel Threatens Water Supplies

Obama's Economic Mirage

UCLA saves the world by not eating beef on Thursdays

For Alaska's Inupiat, Climate Change and Culture Shock

The Reader's Corner:

Send your questions, comments and story leads to GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com with the subject line "The Reader's Corner".

Donald B Parsons: "Whenever I read the articles saying the sky is falling and blaming mainly CO2 emissions I would chuckle a little. I always respond with the same rhetoric that this article does and that is that for at 30 years (since science class) that we emit CO2 and breath O2 and our symbiotic partners (all flora) take in CO2 and emit O2. I know from reading botany books as well as horticulture books and being a hands in the dirt farmer who has had a small garden for our own food source knows that 283 ppms are minimal even up to 380 ppms are small, most plants especially large ones like tomato plants and trees can accept 1200-1500 ppms. I fear the extreme Global Warmers are going to plunge Mother Earth into a tall spin by going TOO far in the WRONG direction. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK and continue refuting all the LIES and over exaggerations by the Al Gores of the world."

Felix Stinson, Winston Salem, NC: "Thank you for your work. This manmade climate change agenda of socialists all over the world is the biggest threat to this country besides terrorism. It will break our economy and our freedom. It is also the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on this ol' world....the propaganda is almost overwhelming and has influenced our kids and many gullible folks our there.....keep hammering away....I hope you all are not just preaching to choir."

[PG]: Don't worry, Felix. We're going to keep hammering away as long as it takes. And we're continuing to explore new ways to get the word out. Along those lines, we've got some exciting plans in store for GreenWatch. Keep an eye out for announcements in the next newsletter.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

"It may be wrong to suggest impending doom, but if doom isn't impending, it's out there somewhere...If running out of oil doesn't scare you, maybe an iceberg the size of Connecticut floating away from Antarctica and hitting the United States will get your attention."

-Andy Rooney

Monday, April 6, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 22 (April 6, 2009)

Featured Story:
It's one of the first things I remember learning in second grade science class: People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, plants "breathe" in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. It seems that some scientists and journalists missed that day of class:

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

Plants are getting bigger and stronger, taking in more CO2 and, I presume, sending out more O2. Could it be that a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than spelling out doom for every living thing on the planet, is...a good thing? Could it be that increased CO2 will mean stronger plants, and thusly more and better crops? Could it be that efforts to stem the tide of the increase in CO2 will lead to decreases in food production and food shortages across the globe?

Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, wrote about this very phenomenon last June in the Financial Post, in a column called "In Praise of CO2."

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.

Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.

Everywhere you look, there's another hole in the theory of Global Warming. Even a second grader could tell you that.

Additionally, a few weeks ago in this space we told you about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The goal of this act was to protect small children from ingesting lead. Andrew in New York brings my attention to the sobering reality; the consequences have been disastrous for business, families, and, as it turns out, could be putting children in harm's way:
Thousands of children 12 and younger ride motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which is why a lot of effort and time has gone into designing vehicles made for smaller folks. On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted a study by the Motorcycle Industry Council that concluded "90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles.
On Thursday of last week, the Senate of the United States voted 58 to 39 to reject an amendment to the budget bill designed to keep kids on bikes designed for them and thus off adult vehicles. The reason the amendment was offered by South Carolina's Jim DeMint is because the 2008 "Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act" mandates that products containing even trace amounts of lead --trace amounts highly unlikely to ever come in contact with a child's digestion system-- were banned from sale to children 12 and under.
The law took effect in February an instantly made it illegal to sell the kid-sized vehicles because of nearly undetectabl amounts of lead in tire valves, brakes, batteries etc. Replacement parts for vehicles for kids are similarly interdicted.
Ed Morrissey states the obvious:

I find it ridiculous to point this out to Congress, but children do not eat ATVs. The lead content of its components will not end up in small stomachs. Children do not ride ATVs without being clothed, so skin contact is minimal and transitory. What's next -- banning cars because children might ride in them?

No, they'll be banned because of the emissions, silly!

More Headlines:

Earth Population Exceeds Limits

Sun Has Fewest Sunspots Since 1913

Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism

China, India Reject Climate Agreement That Obstructs Economic Growth

Vanity Fair Abandons Green Issue

The Great Antarctic Ice Scare: The Facts

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Will Global Warming Doom Maple Syrup? The mere thought keeps me up late at night, fearing for the fate of my french toast. This article in The Daily Green seems to claim that it will:
All farming depends on the weather, but few foods are more dependent on a specific climate than maple syrup. After all, for the sugar maple's sap to run at all requires cooperative weather - freezing nights followed by warmer days.
But with the buildup of invisible greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, those temperature swings don't happen as reliably. At risk is an American tradition that stretches back even before Europeans discovered the "New World."
"Weather controls it all," says Marty Fitzgerald, a fifth-generation sugarmaker in upstate New York.
But this claim, just like every dubious dire prediction from the Green Agenda, has no basis in reality.

From the Wausau Daily Herald, April 6, 2009: Maple Syrup Producers Optimistic
From the Lindsay Post in Ontario, CA, April 2, 2009: So Far, So Good for Maple Syrup Producers

Eventually, the Green Agenda will have to feel at least a little twinge of guilt from egregious claim after egregious claim...right?

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 21 (March 31, 2009)

Featured Story:

Last Saturday from 8:30-9:30 pm was "Earth Hour." Organized by the World Wildlife Fund, the event was supposed to be "a vote for the future of planet Earth," and organizers hoped every light in the world would be turned off for one hour at that time.

Unfortunately for the organizers, it seems that "Earth Hour" was a global bust.

Here is a picture of Times Square. The top is before "Earth Hour," the bottom is during it. See any difference?

In California, Roger Sowell examines the data and determines that "There was no apparent decrease in the power load throughout the state, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. No step changes, nothing, nada, zip, zilch."

In Australia, GreenWatch favorite Andrew Bolt tells us that electrical consumption in Melbourne did fall, but only by 2 percent. A year ago, it fell 10.1 percent.

Noted Global Warming denier Bjorn Lomborg penned an editorial in The Australian arguing that turning out the lights for Earth Hour would actually increase emissions if people turned to candlelight as a substitute.

And what did our favorite Global Warming icon Al Gore do for Earth Hour?

I pulled up to Al's house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm - right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.

In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching "Cheaters" or "Chelsea Lately" reruns.)

The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore's mansion.

I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn't be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.

It seems even Al Gore is getting tired of Global Warming Propaganda. Or maybe it's just that, as if with every other sacrifice he asks of regular Americans in this loony fight against global warming, he figures if everyone else does it, he won't have to.

More Headlines:

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Draw Quality Complaints

Washington Times: Protect Us From The EPA

Proof of Man-made Global Warming: Lost in Space

Spokane Residents Smuggle Suds Over Green Brands

Pollution Visible From Space

Quote of the Week:

From a participant in the climate change conference in Copenhangen we covered last newsletter:

"Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do."

The Reader's Corner:

Last week we printed a well reasoned letter from one of our readers in the hope you would respond. And respond you did:

Gary Pinson, Apple Valley: "Spot on! I know Gordon Cooper and he is one of the smartest people I have ever met. Soft spoken and gentlemanly, but as a former Army Air Corps pilot during WWII and a retired Bio-Chemical Engineer, he is awesome!"

J Neel: "Thank you for printing Gordon's email .... what a wonderful response to all the "Dooms Day" articles lying about "Global Warming" to make a few rich, off the backs of we, the "Poor Taxpayers", who are footing the biggest "Give Away" program in the history of the world .... Al Gore just happens to be a co-owner of the company who would SELL the right for companies to emit their gases .... It sounds like Y-2K, all over again."

Bert Conner: "Gordon, I agree with you 100%. Water vapor is the most important item in the greenhouse family. It seems to be absent in a lot of studies. I have been looking at David Archibald's data, written in laymens terms, not being an advanced Physics individual.

"Personally, [I believe] AGW is now politically driven! Pure and simple! God help our checkbooks!"

James G. Monroe, Ph.D.: "While I do agree with Gorgon's comments, I think we must consider something else. There is not real scientific evidence that variations in CO2 are the result of human activity. The only person to hit on a solution seems to be ignored. Pope Benedict XVI has recommended tree planting to help eliminate the CO2. What we really need is a ban on any activity in the Amazon rain forest and an international effort to restore it. The destruction of the rain forest has done more to alter climate than any other human activity."

And finally, regarding our featured story last week, from a reader who neglected to leave his name, but I felt it should be run anyway (Remember readers, please send your name and location in with your comments!):

My question to Mr. Brown would be: Just how do you propose to achieve this 50% population reduction?
Controlling immigration would not achieve this goal as it only stops one group of people from migrating to the UK, but they are still having negative effects on the planet from another land mass.
Since a single generation is 20 to 25 years, would he suggest no babies be born in the UK at all? After this time span, most remaining women would be too old to procreate. Besides, the Global Warming believers say we do not have any time left before the planet is destroyed.
That leaves one very chilling (no pun intended) alternative. Selective thinning "of the herd", so to speak. Now, I wonder, just who would get to make this decision? Will he have a lottery? How about who pays for this and will he have to raise taxes to fund it? Who would be left to actually pay these taxes anyway? What if Mr. Brown's number were selected first, would he set a noble example and bravely march forth for the good of the planet?
All very perplexing questions. Another example of bogus science run amuck.
Have a comment on a story this week? Would you like to see us cover a certain story or topic? Email us at greenwatchamerica@gmail.com.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

The United Nations got on the "Earth Hour" band wagon this week, agreeing to go dark as part of the "largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted." They claimed that not only was the choice a "vote for the future of planet Earth," but that it would also save them money. A lot of money.

In fact, they claimed turning off the lights in the UN for Earth Hour would save them $81,000. Extrapolate that out. If they pay 81,000 dollars an hour for electricity, they would pay $1,944,000.00 per day, $58,320,000.00 or so per month, and $709,560,000.00 for the year.

After seeing that this initial projection of $81,000 dollars saved didn't quite add up, the UN reduced its estimate to $24,000 saved for the hour. But that too didn't come close to making sense, so they finally came out with a third estimate: Turning the lights off for Earth Hour would save the United Nations a grand total of $102.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Monday, March 23, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 20 (March 23, 2009)

Featured Story:

Jonathon Porritt, one of the leading environmental advisers to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will claim this week that if the country wants to build a sustainable society, it will need to halve its population from 60 million to 30 million.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Rick Moran of the American Thinker explains just what is so dangerous about this claim.

This is beyond insidious. In order to achieve a 50% reduction in population, Great Britain would have to mandate family size and even take control of family planning completely, making the decisions regarding which parents will be able to have children and which won't.

And there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that reducing the population of a developed country will impact climate change one iota. They are just making stuff up as they go along.

These sustainable development freaks look at humans as the rest of us look at cockroaches. And it's high time they stopped bugging us with their wild, unsupported stupidities regarding the kind of world that would feature little industry, less commerce, and everyone rooting around on their own 40 acres growing sweet potatoes while trying not to exhale too much carbon dioxide.
Just last week we highlighted a story claiming Global Warming would reduce the world's population by more than 5 billion people, and now the solution to global warming is halve a country's population. Tell me, if dramatic population reduction is the only solution to avoiding the calamitous result of...dramatic population reduction, then what, exactly, is the point?

More Headlines:

World's Cheapest Car: Boon or Bane?

Alarmist Propaganda 101: Could Global Warming Turn Rhode Island Into the Under-Ocean State?

Democrats Carbon Cap and Trade Plans Cancelled?

Global Warming Alarmist Complains the Weather Isn't Supporting the Theory

Alarmists Turn Blind Eye to Global Warming Benefits...Again

The Reader's Corner:

Usually we feature several emails in this space. This week, however, we're saving it for just one. What a delight it was to read this email, from Gordon Cooper of Apple Valley. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And I hope it will stimulate some discussion amongst our readership:

"A review of some facts reveal the the global warming promotors selectively pick data to support their global warming contention. The atmosphere is made up of 78 % nitrogen, 20 % oxygen, 1 % argon and .038 % carbon dioxide. Note that water is not included. However, water is the greatest absorber of solar radiation and greatest contributor to atmospheric temperature changes with carbon dioxide to a much lesser degree while nitrogen and oxygen are completely passive. Results of computer models compared with actual atmospheric data show carbon dioxide has been assigned too much affect. Computer models predict the upper atmospheric temperature should increase compared to previous times when carbon dioxide was lower. However, measurements show lower temperatures.

"The warmers underestimate the great affect of water. If you view a photo of the earth from space, you see that much is covered by clouds so that most of the sun's energy is reflected to space. The oceans have a vast effect in stabilizing the earth's temperature because one thousand times as much energy is required to evaporate water as to change the liquid one degree Fahrenheit. A slight increase in the ocean temperature would cause an increase in evaporation and cloud cover and increase the radiation to space. The temperature of our neighboring waterless planets change hundreds of degrees from day to night compared to 30 degrees in our desert or 10 in vegetated areas on earth. The reason for the difference is our oceans cover three quarters of the earth and moist land.

"If the earth is warming and the glaciers and snow packs are melting, the water must end up in the ocean and the sea level must rise. We have accurate measurements from satellites reporting one to two millimeters increase per year over the past several years. This is barely more than the seasonal variation, so what is wrong? We have photos of glaciers receding in Alaska but we are not told of the snow pack on Greenland covering planes that crashed during WW II by 200 feet. We are told Antarctica is melting and a piece of ice the size of Delaware has been sliding into the sea. Actually, the temperature of Antarctica rarely gets up to freezing and ninety percent of the earth's fresh water has accumulated there to a average height of 8200 feet. This huge piece is not melting but is sliding off a mountain of ice. Sea level would increase 260 feet if all the Antarctic ice melted. An increase of one or two millimeters should not be a cause for fear."

If you have anything you'd like to say in response to Gordon, please email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. This space is yours, readers. We want to hear from you, even (especially) if you disagree with something you read here.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

According to a tribunal in England, if you support the Green Agenda, you are entitled to the same legal protections for your beliefs as a Catholic, Muslim, or Jew has for theirs:
An executive, who is devoted to saving the environment, has been given permission to sue his employers for unfair dismissal for allegedly discriminating against his views on climate change.
Tim Nicholson's commitment to green causes was enshrined in law by an employment tribunal as a "philosophical belief" under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations...

Mr Nicholson said that his frustrations were underlined when the Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive, "showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind in London".

Mr Nicholson also fell foul of his colleagues when he tried establish a carbon management strategy for the company which had been listed as a target in its annual report. But when he tried to calculate the firm's carbon footprints the information was refused to him by the personnel department. He said that Grainger's executives would turn up for meetings in "some of the most high polluting cars on the road".

Effectively, this tribunal is saying that the Green Agenda is just like a religion. The most surprising aspect of this week's claim?

We actually agree with it!