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

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!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 19 (March 17, 2009)

Featured Story:

The BBC covered the Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Here is the headline:

Sounds like this conference was filled with hard scientific data regarding the current impact of climate change and how the impacts correlate with previous projections. But read past the headline and what do you find (bolds are mine)?

In a statement in Copenhagen on their six key messages to political leaders, they say there is a increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climate shifts.

Even modest temperature rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, they warn...

New data was presented in Copenhagen on sea level rise, which indicated that the best estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made two years ago were woefully out of date.

Scientists heard that waters could rise by over a metre across the world with huge impacts for hundreds of millions of people.

There was also new information on how the Amazon rainforest would cope with rising temperatures. A UK Meteorological Office study concluded there would be a 75% loss of tree cover if the world warmed by three degrees for a century.

There's not a single fact related to the headline in the entire story. This is a press release from the pro-global warming propaganda machine, passed off as an objective news story.

The BBC, as far as I can tell, did not cover the Heartland Institute's second annual International Conference on Climate Change, covered brilliantly by Marc Sheppard of The American Thinker. I can find only one mention of the "Oregon Petition," (in the 'Student Life' section) which has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists and includes the following text:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

For too many years the media have been blatantly promoting the global warming agenda. They've boosted dubious claims from scientists with dubious credentials and politicians with no credentials whatsoever, while suppressing dissenting opinions. Fortunately, the public is starting to catch on.

"Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject."

The media are caught in a conundrum now. They can continue suppressing dissent and watch their own reputation continue to plummet, or they can give those scientists who dissent from the "consensus" a voice in the debate, and watch as the truth gets out, and support for global warming dwindles down to nothing.

Whoopsy Daisy:

Last week, we tried to link readers to a clip of Bjorn Lomborg challenging Mr. Gore to a debate at the ECO:nomics conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, we linked you to the incorrect clip. You can see that clip here. Apologies for any confusion our error may have caused.

More Headlines:

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

Kerry: Climate Change Delay is "Suicide Pact"

Britain's Birds Facing Extinction Due to Climate Change?

Has Global Warming Accelerated? (No)

Time to Prepare for Climate Change

The Reader's Corner:

Raymond of Bakersfield, CA: "I remember that back in the 1970's scientists had predicted the probability of a new "Ice Age" and how we had to increase the earth temperature, or we all would freeze to death. They all has a load of computer generated models to back their point, just like Al Gore and his people have today. There were major scientists who were convinced it would happen and the movie industry came out with a load of movies as well.

Now let's face a few facts, depending on where one lives we see 4 climate changes every year, they are seasonal. Yes, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall, that is solid proof we have global climate change. We sometimes have hot years and colder years, that is because of that big ball of burning gas a few million miles away called the sun.

Now it is a fact that water vapor is the most destructive of the greenhouse gases. With too much of it, we have massive rains which cause flooding, soil erosion and with too little of it we have droughts, which cause soil erosion too. Now can Al Gore and his people tell me how to control the weather so everyone can get a decent amount of rain?

Now in the course of man down the ages, what did man do back in the stone ages to cause global warming? What industries did he have that contributed to the "Ice Ages" and what amount of Mastodon poop tipped the scales to cause the warming of the earth to end an Ice Age?"

Lee, San Antonio, TX: "If anybody believes Al Gore they must also believe in the Tooth Fairy! He's in it strictly for the money. His zinc mine on his property in Tennessee has been polluting the Caney Fork River ever since Armand Hammer first mined it back in the '40s!"

[PG]: Here's a recent USA Today story on the zinc mine I believe Lee is referring to.

Mary, Pittsgrove, NJ: "I do not believe there is true global warming; there are some changes, which are probably the earths' adjustment to the effects of man's activities. I believe the earth has gone through many changes, over the course of eons, and "full of himself" Al Gore ignores these truths for his personal benefit.

That said, the article about the melting of Arctic Summer Ice is confusing. I have read the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica. Can you provide an explanation?"

[PG]: Mary - the Arctic summer ice they're referring to in the North Pole, not in Antarctica (which, being in the Southern Hemisphere, is in the midst of winter while you in New Jersey, I in New York, and the polar ice caps in the North Pole, are enduring summer). You are correct; the ice in Antarctica has been expanding. As for offering an explanation...well, I'm afraid I can't offer anything more interesting than it's just part of a natural cycle. See, I'm not one of the people arguing that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the atmosphere, leading to world-altering natural disasters and unsustainable habitats for most of humanity. So when information like this comes around, it's easy for me to take it in stride. I think you can understand why it's a bit tougher for them.

Have a comment on one of the stories this week? Got a story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

According to some global warming experts, global warming will raise sea levels enough to make New York City vulnerable to hurricanes and storm surges, which, of course, brings thoughts of the special effects extravaganza The Day After Tomorrow. This story makes a similar claim:
"Scientists at the Copenhagen conference said that modest IPCC estimates of likely sea level rise this century need to be increased. Extra melting in Greenland could drive sea levels to more than a metre higher than today by 2100"
But it seems the greens made a few errors in calculation:
"This is typical eco-bloat. Taking into account that the Earth's surface is 70% ocean and that it takes 1.1 cubic mile of ice to make a cubic mile of water, to raise the oceans one inch would take 2400 (2398+) cubic miles of ice. To raise the oceans one meter would take 94,488 cubic miles of ice melting. Greenland is melting at 55 cubic miles a year, their dream is to make us believe that the melting would become not two or four times faster than today but 18.67 times faster, from 55 cubic miles a year to 1027 cubic miles a year for 92 years."
A typically silly error from the Green Agenda. But to be fair, that's really just a math error or, at worst, a cynical exaggeration. Far worse is a claim from Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that he offered at the previously mentioned Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen, who said that a warming of five degrees globally could make the earth unsustainable for more than one billion people.

That, in simple English, means that he believes a five degree increase would kill more than five billion people. The Hadley Center claims that the earth is on course for a possible 7 degree increase in global temperature by 2100. Good thing there are only 6.7 billion people on earth.

Monday, March 9, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 18 (March 9, 2009)

Featured Headline:

This week the Wall Street Journal hosted their second annual conference on so-called "green" energy called ECO:nomics - Creating Environmental Capital. Many famous figures in the global warming debate turned out to discuss "the intersection of business and the environment." Among them, of course, was Al Gore. Mr. Gore, as has become his M.O. harped on the immediate need for action:
I think that we're at a moment in history when we as a civilization have been slow to recognize the enormity of the climate crisis. It is a genuine planetary emergency. And this is the moment to make a one-off investment in the transformation of our energy infrastructure from one that is based on dirty and expensive, declining, vulnerable carbon-based fuels to one that's based on fuels that are free forever.

Later in the event, the floor was open to questions from the audience. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish Environmentalist and global warming denier, stood up to challenge Mr. Gore's position. I've transcribed it below, but you can watch the video yourself at this link.

Lomborg: It seems to me that you are probably the most well-known person arguing that we should be spending a large sum of our money and we should be spending most of our concern on focusing on cutting carbon emissions, and cutting very, very soon. And I would argue that the Copenhagen Consensus [think tank] and certainly a lot of really well-esteemed Nobel awards tell us that both scientifically and economically, it's not a very good way to spend our money.

And so my point is to actually say, "Shouldn't we have that debate?" I know you've sort of dodged that bullet before, and I don't mean to corner you. Well, maybe I do mean to corner you. Do you want to have a debate on that? Would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?

Gore: Look, I think that I want to be polite to you. But the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we as a civilization, let alone we as the United States of America, should pretend that this is an on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand kind of situation.

You know, the tobacco industry for many years after the surgeon general's report collected the epidemiological evidence that was already very, very damning. They had strategic exercises with the PR experts to try to divert people down into the details of this and that. And they delayed public-health action for 40 years. And millions and millions of people died as a result. The stakes this time are so high.

Look closely at this exchange: Mr. Lomborg wants to debate Mr. Gore, not on whether or not the science of global warming is settled, but rather how wealth can best be used to benefit mankind, whether it be through disease prevention, feeding the hungry, or other philanthropic efforts. Mr. Gore, however, either doesn't hear or chooses to ignore Mr. Lomborg's point, instead responding smugly as though Mr. Lomborg were questioning the science on the issue.

If Mr. Gore simply didn't hear or didn't understand Mr. Lomborg's point, then his response, while tone deaf, is excusable if cowardly. If he did both hear and understand Mr. Lomborg, then Mr. Gore's response is abominable. Would he really suggest that the time has passed for debate how people, businesses and governments can best use their own money to do the most good? Would he just have us give it all to him to do with as he pleases?

Or perhaps Gore is simply afraid of any debate at all. The organizers of the conference rescheduled Mr. Gore's appearance at the last minute. Why?

Former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore allegedly feared a direct confrontation with Czech President Vaclav Klaus at a conference on global warming, and this is why Gore's presentation was rescheduled for another day, Lidove noviny (LN) writes Thursday, referring to Klaus's spokesman.

And it's really no wonder Gore refuses to debate. Just three years ago, the public overwhelmingly believed Gore's theory, largely because it hadn't been challenged. Now? A Pew research poll places Global Warming dead last on the list of issues Americans believe Barack Obama should focus his attention on, below, in order, the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, energy, Medicare, health care, deficit reduction, health insurance, helping the poor, crime, moral decline, the military, tax cuts, the environment, immigration, lobbyists, and trade policy.

It seems as far as a global warming debate is concerned, if it weren't for his friends in the media, Mr. Gore couldn't convince anybody.

More Headlines:

Jacoby: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Top Ten Climate Change Deniers

Gore Effect Ctd: Temperatures Have Dropped Since the Release of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Warning: Breathing Causes Global Warming

Columbia University Scientists Probe Stone Age Solution for Global Warming

The Reader's Corner:

Jerry of Hampton, NH: "The tragedy of climate as seen through the eyes of Gore and Hansen and others who profit from such lies reminds me of an old adage: 'Lord, protect me from my protectors.'"

Alexander writes in all the way from El Salvador: "Every intelligent person knows that Global Warming is a myth! If Al Gore really believes it he is in denial. But I doubt that. It is just another leftist political ploy at gaining control over our lives."

David critiques our photography: "Regarding your picture of the capitol gathering - your camera angle was wrong! Shoot through their feet and it looks like twice as many people are there and then you only have to cut and paste half as much to get the 'real' effects! Hope this technique is of some help to you in the future!"

Well David, those actually weren't our pictures last week. But we'll be sure to take your advice to heart next time we want to mislead the public and the media regarding turnout at an allegedly "major" event combating global warming.

Felix from Winston-Salem, NC: "Yes, I saw a comment that I would like to second. I too would love to place my foot in Al Gore's fat behind with a swift kick. People of his ilk should be exposed, ridiculed, and put out of business. This man made global warming movement is based on a hoax perpetrated by individuals who stand to profit from Cap and Trade schemes and enemies of America's system of government and way of conducting business. The sooner the American nation realizes that this is a ruse the better."

And finally, Marcella from Huntsville, AL: "Sunday morning, March 1, we woke up to a rare and beautiful site...a dusting of snow in Huntsville, Al. As we entered church that morning our Priest welcomed us with 'happy snowbal warming'"

Need to comment on one of the stories this week? A story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Headlines rang out across the nation: Expert Says Arctic Summer Ice Could Vanish by 2013!
The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday.

Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.

The year "2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we've been wrong -- each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected," he told Reuters.

Of course the next paragraph goes on to note that Arctic ice actually increased in 2008, but never mind pesky details like that. In any case, we were particularly struck by this claim. It reminded us of something else...something we had heard before...
June 27, 2008
The distinct possibility that this summer -- for the first time in recorded history -- the North pole could be free of sea ice, is now a common subject of discussion among the world's climate experts.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

GreenWatch Newsletter 17 (March 3, 2009)

Featured Story:
God has a wicked sense of humor:
"Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.
Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol."
Nancy Pelosi had planned on attending the global warming protest, but her flight to Washington was canceled due to the weather. This is yet another example of the so-called Gore Effect, which the website Urban Dictionary defines as, "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow visits an area to discuss global warming." Some examples of the Gore Effect:
  • January 2004: Gore delivers speeches in Boston and New York City on one of the coldest days in either city's history
  • November 2006: Gore visits New Zealand, New Zealand experiences unusually cold October, hurting local Farmers
  • November 15, 2006: Al Gore visits Australia
  • November 16, 2006: Snow falls in Queensland Australia for the first time in at least 65 years.
  • March 2007: Capitol Hill media briefing on global warming canceled due to a snowstorm
  • October 2008: Gore gives global warming speech at Harvard in 125 year record breaking cold temperatures
The cynic in me says this is justice for Dr. James Hansen and Gore's initial bit of stagecraft in 1988, when they first sold the idea of global warming to the American public. Gore and Hansen planned ahead, picking one of the hottest days of the year and opened all the windows so the air conditioning in the capitol wouldn't work properly. This chicanery gave Hansen's testimony a real sense of urgency, as he was constantly wiping his brow while predicting the grave future of a warming earth.

As an aside, organizers of the event claimed thousands of participants at the protests. GreenWatchAmerica wasn't among them, so we have no way of determining the accuracy of that number. All we can do is link you to this picture and ask, does that really look like thousands of people?

More Headlines:

Japanese Commission Challenges UN: Global Warming Not Man-Made

Global Warming On Hold?

The High Cost of Climate Lies

Consensus Propaganda Is Corrosive to Science - and Liberty

The Reader's Corner:

Last week I started The Reader's Corner as a venue for GreenWatch's loyal readers to have their say. And wow did you respond! Let's get right to it.

Disgusted Danny in Kansas: "Thanks for keeping to the facts, something El Gordo loves to inconveniently disregard. Oh, by the way, El Gordo owns the company that you pay those carbon credits to.....another inconvenient truth for Gordo. I remember the same misinformation artists predicting in the 70's that we were headed for a New Ice Age, last year it was the dimming sun, and now it's modified into climate change....but don't worry the alternative energy fairy will wave its Obama and poof! Wind will provide all the jobs that we need to replace coal and cheaper too....and if you believe that I've got an Illinois Senate seat I'll sell you---Cheap!!"

Joanne: "Teresa's comment in your e-mail of February 24 correctly states the deception of our public officials to gain more control over our lives as they personally profit from it. They must be stopped....like completely ignoring their lies. I am reminded of the Scriptures.....'And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.' I see America clearly in this powerful Word!"

Lamar in Mobile, AL: "I'd like to know if Al Gore has heard or read about all the hot, humid places that temperature monitors have been found, such as on building rooftops, in jet blast areas at airports and inside 'protective' enclosures with light bulbs in them, and what his reactions were to such information."

(Me): Lamar, this is an excellent point. Some of the monitors used to calculate global temperature are located where their daily readings can be impacted by all sorts of factors having nothing to do with the weather. For more on this topic, see the late Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear, which, while a work of fiction, contains accurate descriptions of this phenomenon.

Keith in Hollywood, FL: "Everyone should realize there are billions of dollars in grants and research as well as book sales, speaking engagements; for the scientific populace there has never been money so available for research on any subject and of course this will disappear if the 'science' is debunked. Many people including politicians have made huge investments in the future of 'alternative energy' and CO2 mitigation, they will do everything in their power to maximize their gain... In the meantime, they are not drilling for U.S. Oil, not building 'green' nuclear plants, not building out the hydrogen infrastructure so that fuel cell autos can be refueled. It's all smoke, mirrors and MONEY and we are the fools who pay for it! There are a series of 'Tea Parties' being held to disavow the politician's belief that they have a 'mandate' for all of this BS. Please join in, fax, e-mail of even WRITE your Congressperson and Senators. They think we are stupid, apathetic and lazy, let's prove them wrong and stop this nonsense."

And we'll leave it to Floyd to end this week's installment of The Reader's Corner: "As cold as it is here, I would like to contribute to warming and leave my big carbon foot print on Al Gore's big broad behind."

Have something to say? A comment on one of the stories this week? A story you'd like us to cover for next week's newsletter? Email us at Greenwatchamerica@gmail.com. Be sure you include your name and location.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Steve Guilbeault of Green Peace:
"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter; that's what we're dealing with."
How convenient.