GreenWatchBlog

This Week's Headlines

2009-06-15T15:58:00.000-07:00

Naturalism Has Been Hijacked

Sir Paul McCartney Calls for Meat-free Mondays to Combat Climate Change

El Nino is the Main Driver of Global Temperatures

Is Obama Caving Into Coal?

White Rooftops May Help Slow Warming

Australia Pushes for Global Airline Emissions Standards

L.A. Congressman's Global Warming Bill Could Hit Poor Hardest

Eco-Terrorists Threaten Hazelwood Power's Graeme York

Too Little CO2 to End Life on Earth

Tornado Season Just Below Average

This Week's Headlines

2009-06-08T18:27:00.000-07:00

The Con is On: How Carbon Credits Neuter Cap & Trade

Watering Down Biofuels

East Coast May Feel Rise in Sea Levels Most

Airlines Reject New Tax to Fight Global Warming

Nansen Corrects Sea-Ice Data

China and U.S. Seek a Truce on Greenhouse Gasses

Realists Challenge Claim of Consensus on Global Warming

Nine Alien Insects to Cause Pain, Illness, Even Death in Britain as Climate Warms

The Man Who Cried Doom

Wear Cork, Save the World!

Should Climate Models Be Accepted as Evidence in a Court of Law

Quote of the Week

2009-06-08T17:16:00.000-07:00

Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, CA) at the third annual International Conference on Climate Change:

"Al Gore has been wrong all along! This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

This Week's Headlines

2009-06-01T10:01:00.000-07:00

The Breath Tax

Arctic Warmed Much Faster from 1910-1940 than from 1970-2009

I Wish the Earth Were Warming: It Would Save a Lot of Lives

President Obama Folding on Promise to Make Corporations Pay to Pollute?

Texas Kills Solar Bill on Last Minute Motion

Polluters Embrace Carbon-Eating Trees

Pelosi's Chinese Climate Change

Airborne Bacteria Discredit Climate Modeling Dogma

Gas Prices High Enough? Not for Washington

And watch this great video showing the evolution of the Arctic Ice "melt" over the last 30 years:

This Week's Headlines (Continued)

2009-05-28T06:17:00.000-07:00

Newspapers Bristle at Environmentalism Being Mocked in New Animated TV Show

Is Global Warming Responsible for Slow Tornado Season?

LA's Big Burn Exposed

Obama's Solution for the Car Companies: Make More Expensive Cars Nobody Wants

Gaseous Emissions

China (World's Biggest Polluter) Says Rich Nations Must Cut Emissions 40 Percent

Gore Calls on World Business Leaders to Push for Climate Deal

The Climate Industrial Complex

PJTV Video: Exposing the Myths of Our Energy Supply and Environment (Video)

Why I Am a Climate Realist

CFC's Responsible for ozone depletion?

2009-05-27T12:29:00.000-07:00

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.

This Week's Headlines

2009-05-19T05:59:00.000-07:00

Science Says Climate Change Isn't Fueling Hurricanes

Alaskan Land Rising Faster than Alaskan Sea

Researchers Scale Back Forecast of Sea Level Rise

EPA Focus on Greenhouse Gasses Over Conventional Pollutants Draws Concern

Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap-And-Trade

Arctic Cooling Has Begun

Did Arctic Warming Ever Start? (Arctic non-warming since 1958)

From the "you have got to be kidding me" department: Global Warming May Exceed Infections as Health Threat

Save the Polar Bear: Hysteria and Myth

Doctor's Health Warning on Climate Change

What To Expect From Renewable Energy

2009-05-18T11:06:00.000-07:00

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:

This Week's Headlines

2009-05-11T17:14:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-11T13:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Quote of the Week

2009-05-04T17:50:00.000-07:00

“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

2009-05-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-05-04T09:01:00.000-07:00

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

Headlines

2009-04-27T09:42:00.001-07:00

The Missing Sunspots: Is This The Big Chill?

The Dilemma Over Coal-Generated Power

Steven Milloy: Al Gore Lies to Congress?

Martian Made Global Warming?

5 Things Worse For the Planet Than Global Warming

Obama Wants America to be More Like Europe

Antarctica Melting and Freezing Simultaneously

Australia Becoming Denier Nation

Getting Real on Wind and Solar

And finally, a lovely little ditty on Global Warming called, "Don't Think, Just Do As I Say."

John Dingell on Cap and Trade

2009-04-27T08:35:00.001-07:00

Quote of the Week

2009-04-25T07:57:00.000-07:00

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."

GreenWatch Newsletter 24 (April 20, 2009)

2009-04-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

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."

Elizabeth:

"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:

Happy Earth Day!

2009-04-22T07:48:00.001-07:00

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

Obama's Foolish Rail Plan

2009-04-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-20T14:35:00.001-07:00

Watch the trailers for both films below:

This Week's Headlines

2009-04-20T14:34:00.002-07:00

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

2009-04-20T14:34:00.001-07:00

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.

GreenWatch Newsletter 23 (April 13, 2009)

2009-04-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 22 (April 6, 2009)

2009-04-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

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 WIVB.com, March 20, 2009: "New York Maple Producers had a bumper crop in 2008..."

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?

GreenWatch Newsletter 21 (March 31, 2009)

2009-03-31T10:57:00.000-07:00

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.

GreenWatch Newsletter 20 (March 23, 2009)

2009-03-23T10:55:00.000-07:00

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!

GreenWatch Newsletter 19 (March 17, 2009)

2009-03-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

Climate Scenarios 'Being Realized'

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.

GreenWatch Newsletter 18 (March 9, 2009)

2009-03-09T10:52:00.000-07:00

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...

ABC NEWS: ARCTIC'S FIRST ICE FREE SUMMER POSSIBLE EVEN THIS YEAR

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.

Whoops.

GreenWatch Newsletter 17 (March 3, 2009)

2009-03-03T10:52:00.000-08:00

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.

GreenWatch Newsletter 16 (February 23, 2009)

2009-02-23T10:51:00.000-08:00

Featured Story:

Global Warming advocates have made a habit of arguing that Global Warming not only will lead to more natural disasters, but actually has already done so. Climate realists, including this newsletter at times, have just as frequently pointed out that there is no evidence to support this claim. Well it seems our side has a new ally: Al Gore.

That's right. The Goracle himself has removed a slide from his oft-rebutted PowerPoint presentation "An Inconvenient Truth" that contained a graph which purported to show an incredible spike in disasters in recent years. He culled the data from Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times explains:

"The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. "This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented," he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)

"Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here's why.

"Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters."

In fact, this isn't the only bogus claim of Gore's recently debunked. Al Gore and United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon published an Op-Ed in The Financial Times last month that claimed that there are significantly more jobs to be found in the wind-energy industry than in the coal industry. A related article claimed that there were 85,000 jobs in wind and just 81,000 in coal. But according to The Christian Science Monitor:

"...it's a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more." The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants."

Using faulty statistics to support their position is not the behavior of a movement confident in their position. And how could they be confident, with global temperatures declining, arctic ice levels matching those from 30 years ago (more on that below) and the American public growing more and more resistant to their claims?

More Headlines:

Next Decade May See No Warming

Earth and Mars Both Have Global Warming (How did our CO2 get all the way out there?)

In Australia, Tensions Boil Over on Climate Change

Climate Fears Driving "Eco-Migration" Across Globe

Global Warming Increases Respiratory Disease

Global Cooling Increases Respiratory Disease

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Here's the claim: Arctic Sea Ice is at historically low levels. You've heard it repeated a thousand times.

This year, however the claim seemed to be bunk. Arctic ice was recovering dramatically, nearly matching levels from 30 years ago. Then suddenly, for no discernible reason, it dropped severely. Why?

"A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called "sensor drift," began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That's when "puzzled readers" alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site."

Here's a link to a map showing Arctic ice cover. On the left is January 1, 2009. On the right is January 1, 1979. Here's a comparison of 2009 and 1989. And here's 2009 and 1999.

Judge for yourself.

The Reader's Corner:

We're adding a new feature to the newsletter this week: The Reader's Corner. This is your opportunity to sound off on Global Warming, a story in the newsletter, or whatever springs to mind this week. Just email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. Please include your name and where you're from.

Rennie from Missouri: "My opinion of global warming is another government control gimmick to impose restrictions on companies, so that they can control those companies by forcing them to comply and I also believe it is in a round-about way, government's way of controlling private lands."

Buck responds to the featured story from last week, about the government restricting the amount of lead in children's toys: "I have worked with Lead for most of my life and am now 70 years old and in good health. Lead can be harmful if you do not take care of yourself. It will take drinking it do any harm."

Teresa writes in about the stimulus bill including money for an arctic ice breaking ship: "Now, why on God's green earth would they need an Ice Breaker if the ice is melting in the Arctic as 'they' claim?"

And Gene thinks we're not doing enough: "After reading your e-mail about "The New Book Banning" it is obvious your stand on 'Global Warming' is as timid as Congress's bull in the china shop approach is stupid greedy and totally uninformed!! The Congress is hot on global warming because it allows them to steal large sums of money from the American People in the form of 'Carbon taxes', supposedly to 'fight global warming' but really just a slush fund from which to steal money and hide it for themselves and their scummy 'friends'."

While we can't do anything about Congress, we'll certainly try to do better, Gene!

Have something to say? Want to tell Al Gore and Goracles how you feel? Email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com

GreenWatch Newsletter 15 (February 17, 2009)

2009-02-17T10:50:00.000-08:00

Featured Story

Last August, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a seemingly sensible reaction to the scare over lead paint in toys from China. The bill included provisions that imposed strict limits on lead in products intended for children and applied those restrictions retroactively. In this quarter's City Journal, Walter Olson exposes the unintended effects of this law:

"...goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don't conform. The law has hit thrift stores particularly hard, since many children's products have long included lead-containing (if harmless) components: zippers, snaps, and clasps on garments and backpacks; skateboards, bicycles, and countless other products containing metal alloy; rhinestones and beads in decorations; and so forth. Combine this measure with a new ban (also retroactive) on playthings and child-care articles that contain plastic-softening chemicals known as phthalates, and suddenly tens of millions of commonly encountered children's items have become unlawful to resell, presumably destined for landfills when their owners discard them"

Thrift stores, who barely scrape by as it is, were presented with the option of having their products undergo tests they couldn't possibly afford. The results throughout the country have been disastrous. Just look at this incredible state by state rundown Olson compiled detailing the impacts of this misguided law.

Perhaps the most egregious result is the possible banning of children's books from thrift stores, used book stores and even public libraries, "which daily expose children under 12 to pre-1985 editions of Anne of Green Gables, Beatrix Potter, Baden-Powell's scouting guides, and other deadly hazards."

"Not until 1985 did it become unlawful to use lead pigments in the inks, dyes, and paints used in children's books. Before then--and perhaps particularly in the great age of children's-book illustration that lasted through the early twentieth century--the use of such pigments was not uncommon, and testing can still detect lead residues in books today. This doesn't mean that the books pose any hazard to children. While lead poisoning from other sources, such as paint in old houses, remains a serious public health problem in some communities, no one seems to have been able to produce a single instance in which an American child has been made ill by the lead in old book illustrations--not surprisingly, since unlike poorly maintained wall paint, book pigments do not tend to flake off in large lead-laden chips for toddlers to put into their mouths."

Now the beautifully crafted books that generation after generation of children grew up reading are being thrown in the trash, thanks to knee-jerk legislation forced through by a fearful Congress.

So how does this relate to Global Warming?

There are two main fronts to the global warming debate: Whether or not the science is true, and, if it is, how to deal with it. The Green Agenda, led by Al Gore, wants you to believe that the first of these points is not up for debate, despite mounting scientific evidence and sentiment to the contrary.

We object to Gore's proclamations of settled science because we believe such claims are A. inaccurate and B. against the very nature of science, which should encourage further study, not dismiss it. However, the possibility remains, however unlikely, that the basic theory of global warming is correct, and that the earth is accelerating through a period of unnatural warming caused at least in part by man. This leads to the second part of the debate: What can we do about it?

This is where things get scary. Our government (and all governments, for that matter) has a tendency of taking bold, drastic regulatory actions where smaller, more thought out steps would be prudent. When they need a scalpel, they reach for the battle axe. This is precisely what happened when it came to CPSIA. Congress overreacted to some shoddily made Chinese toys, hopped aboard their white horses, and swooped in to save the day. And now regular American business owners are paying the price.

If Congress is allowed to react the same way to Global Warming, the results will be the same on a much larger scale.

Economic disaster.

Other Headlines:

2008 coolest year on record since 2000, just 0.69 degrees warmer than the average from 1850-1924

Newest Deniers: George Will and Former Moon Walker and Senator Harrison Schmitt

Science Settled? Rate of Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting "Unknown"

Great Profile of John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder and Global Warming Denier

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Alright, now they've got my attention.

GreenWatch Newsletter 14 (February 12, 2009)

2009-02-12T10:48:00.000-08:00

Featured Story:

A bushfire raged through Australia earlier this week, devastating towns north of Melbourne. The latest report puts the death toll at 181, and it's expected to rise. While the fires are suspected to have been set on purpose (All fires that cannot be tracked to a lightning strike are assumed to have been deliberately started), members of the Green Agenda practically leaped over one another to offer their take on the cause of the tragedy.

"The bushfires are the worst natural disaster in Australia in 110 years. The previous worst bushfire was the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 which killed 75 people.

"The blazes have increased pressure on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to take firm action on climate change as scientists blamed global warming for the conditions that fueled the disaster."

There's a word for this kind of brazen exploitation of the loss of life: "Shameless."

In America, we're familiar with scientists and politicians exploiting national tragedies to promote their own agendas. The same phenomenon occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Scientists, the media, and even a certain politician railed on about how the deadly storm was caused by global warming. It practically became accepted knowledge that Hurricane Katrina was an storm of unprecedented power and the cause of that power was global warming. In reality, the deadly hurricane struck land as only a class 3 hurricane, the horrific death toll was caused not solely by the storm, but by poor maintenance of the levees that should have protected New Orleans from the storm surge and by inadequate preparation and response by the local, state, and federal governments. Not to mention the fact that scientists actually have no idea what effect global warming has on hurricanes, since at different times they have "linked" global warming to more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, weaker hurricanes, and none of the above.

But the Green Agenda in Australia is perhaps even more shameless. Why? Because the extent of the damage may be directly linked to a policy they worked to enact; a policy that may have cost dozens of Australians their homes, and a few their lives.

Angry residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner -- whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze -- criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you d*ckheads won't cut trees down," he said.

One family, however, refused to follow the draconian zoning regulations that prioritize the rights of trees over the safety of people (as the Green Agenda always seems to do). In 2002, Lian Sheahan and his family ignored the rules and bulldozed 250 trees surrounding their house. For this, they were called law breakers, forced to appear before a magistrate and fined $50,000. His family was "emotionally and financially drained."

Then the fires struck. The result? In his own words:

"We are the only house standing in a two-kilometer area."

I guess sometimes "criminals" do prosper.

This Week's Headlines:

Obama Nominee for Chief Science Advisor to the President Believes 1 billion will die from global warming by 2020

New York Times Headline, May 15, 1932

A New Denier Emerges (And Pays the Price)

CO2 Emissions Hit New High

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Already a Nobel Prize Laureate and an Emmy and Oscar winner, Al Gore added another trophy to his ever increasing collection: The Grammy for best spoken word album for An Inconvenient Truth. That means the voters decided that of all the "spoken word albums" released this year, the absolute pinnacle was the audio book of the book of the film of the PowerPoint presentation that has long since been scientifically discredited on virtually every criteria.

Sounds pretty egregious to me.

GreenWatch Newsletter 13 (January 29, 2009)

2009-01-29T10:47:00.000-08:00

So Al Gore braved the winter storm and the world's sense of irony to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on global warming. As usual, Mr. Gore's testimony was riddled with scientifically questionable claims and hyperbole passed off as indisputable facts: "This would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on earth...And this is within the century, if we don't change." As usual, Mr. Gore's claim of a scientific consensus went unchallenged ("The scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops") despite more and more scientists coming out as skeptics. And as usual, Mr. Gore's standing to profit from alternative fuel technology subsidies, as he hoped to include in the stimulus, went ignored by the media and committee alike. As usual, the dissenters did their best to point out Gore's inconsistencies. As usual, they were ignored by the media.

However, something very unusual is happening despite business-as-usual on The Hill. The American people are starting to catch on to these inconsistencies. According to a Rasmussen poll, 41 % of voters believe global warming is caused by human activity, while 44% believe it is the result of long-term planetary trends. This is a huge swing from as recently as April, when 47% believed it was man made, and just 34% believed it to be a natural phenomenon.

And what to make of this article, from the usually reliably left-leaning Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Within it, Mr. Milbank mercilessly mocks the former Vice President, repeatedly referring to him as the "Goracle" and mocking members of the committee for fawning at his feet.

Could Al Gore be wearing out his welcome not just with the American public, but even with his once staunchest allies?

One can only hope.

This Week's Headlines

Al Gore's Propoganda

Bundle Up! Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Cutting Emissions Will Not Bring Relief

Wind Farms aren't Economically or Environmentally Sustainable

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

We've ranted on it before, and we will undoubtedly do so again, but claims like this one, from Australia's "Climate Change Minister" Penny Wong, simply cannot be ignored:

"Obviously you have to look on a much longer time frame than week to week, but what we do know is that 11 of the hottest years in history have been in the last 12 [years]. And we also know, particularly in the southern part of Australia, that we've seen less rainfall. All of this is consistent with climate change and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen."

Of course, Australia has been enduring a week of excessive heat, so Wong thought it an appropriate time to advance the Global Warming Agenda. From James Hansen's first testimony in 1988, Global Warming propogandists have used any examples of extreme heat to support their agenda, while at the same time dismissing any single piece of countering evidence as irrelevent. They even attempted to change to name of their movement from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" in order to claim any extreme weather conditions for their cause.

The simple fact is that short term weather trends are not, I repeat, ARE NOT indicative of long term anthropogenic global warming and politicians and scientists alike who claim that they are are being irresponsible and, dare I say, unscientific. I leave it Andrew Bolt to explain:

"The more important fact is that the temperature of the world has in fact fallen since 2002, which contradicts climate models that predicted warming as we pumped out ever more carbon dioxide. That's the inconvenient truth Wong repeatedly fails to address, as I found when I asked her about this myself.

All this recent heat has proved is the accuracy of forecasts that Melbourne in summer can be damn hot. And?"

GreenWatch Newsletter 12 (December 10, 2008)

2008-12-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

Featured Story:

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

Climate Scientists Say 2008 Will be Coolest Year of the Decade

Greenhouse Gasses Hit Modern Day Highs

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

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

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

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

More Headlines:

Early Snowfalls in Europe Hit Historic Levels

Skepticism on Climate Change

Ten Global Warming Myths

U.K. Greens' Uncivil Disobedience

Energy Goals a Moving Target for States

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

Climate Opposition 'Suicidal': Flannery

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

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

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

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

Eat Camels to Protect Environment, Aussies Told

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

The koalas must be nervous.

GreenWatch Newsletter 11 (November 3, 2008)

2008-11-03T10:45:00.000-08:00

Featured Story:

In a long-hidden interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promised to "bankrupt" anyone wanting to build a coal plant in the United States. In the interview, conducted in January, Obama, in an unexpected burst of candor, admits that if his cap and trade carbon policy is put in place:

"If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." (to hear his confession, and to see how important coal is to the US economy, click here).

In the same interview, he said that he'll make energy costs "skyrocket." This confession comes on the heels of (well, actually 8 months prior to) Joe Biden's startling exchange on the campaign trail (which you can watch here) wherein he said, "We're not supporting clean coal. No coal plants here in America."

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

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

This Week's Headlines

Steve Forbes Joins the Ever-Increasing List of Deniers

Anchorage Suffers One of Its Coldest Octobers Ever

Energy Independence: Can It Be Done?

What's Really Happening to the Greenland Ice Cap?

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

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

Climate Disaster a Significant Possibility Says Nobel Prize Winner Stephen Chu

One of the frequent responses of the radical green agenda, when confronted with the fact that are many many prestigious scientists reject the "consensus" on global warming, is to say that these scientists are not climatologists, so they should be ignored. Well, let's take a look at Mr. Chu's biography, shall we?

Stephen Chu, born 1948 in St. Louis, Missouri, is an American experimental physicist. He is known for his research in laser cooling and trapping of atoms, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. His current research is concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level. He is currently Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cellular Biology of University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Oh, so he's not a climatologist at all? In the words of Tom Nelson, whose blog is an indispensable resource for this newsletter and anyone interested in this issue:

"If alarmist Chu and climate realist Freeman Dyson are both physicists, I wonder why we're supposed to believe that Chu is "one of the world's leading climate and energy experts", while we're supposed to ignore Dyson because he's not a climatologist."

But reality doesn't mean anything to the radical greens, remember?

GreenWatch Newsletter 10 (October 22, 2008)

2008-10-22T10:44:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

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

Europe's Climate Revolt

(National Post)

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

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

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

This Week's Headlines:

Sun's Protective Bubble is Shrinking

(The Telegraph)

Addiction to the Worst of Worlds

(The Japan Times)

Cuba Drills, Baby, Drills, Now Has More Oil Than U.S.

(Wall Street Journal)

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

(Wall Street Journal)

Arctic Sea Ice Well Ahead of Last Year's Pace

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

Global Warming Leads to Tiger Attacks

(Yahoo News)

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 9 (September 17, 2008)

2008-09-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Week's Headlines:

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

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

DNC carbon offset program raises $18.34

Al Gore's Global Warming find and replace

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

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

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

Talk about putting lipstick on a pigskin.

GreenWatch Newsletter 8 (September 5, 2008)

2008-09-05T10:31:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

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

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

We shall see.

This Week's Headlines:

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

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

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

The Problem With Pickens

Unusual Snow in New Zealand

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 7 (August 26, 2008)

2008-08-26T10:28:00.000-07:00

Global cooling is gaining momentum among prominent scientists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 6 (August 12, 2008)

2008-08-12T10:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

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

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 5 (August 6, 2008)

2008-08-06T10:14:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

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

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

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

Other Stories:

Warming Won't Drive More Hurricanes, Study Says

(Discovery News)

Branson's Bogus Eco-drive

(Irish Business News)

Calculate Nancy Pelosi's Carbon Footprint

(MichelleMalkin.com)

Canada Must Prepare for New Arctic Age

(Edmonton Journal)

Great Lakes Rising Again; Levels Close to Normal

(Detroit Free Press)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 4 (July 29, 2008)

2008-07-29T10:10:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

In India, Growth Trumps Sustainability

(Lawrence Solomon, National Post)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in order to prevent 'catastrophic' warming, the world continues to cool. That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to "save the planet" is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes."

Professor Bob Carter [Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia)]:

"No significant increase in global average temperature has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide over the same period of about 5%...

There are alternative, very soundly based views on the effects of carbon dioxide and warming of the climate.

A human effect on global climate change has not yet been distinguished and measured . . . meanwhile, global temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does, and a phase of cooling has succeeded the mild late 20th century warming...

Natural climate change will continue with some of its likely manifestations, such as sea-level rises and coastal change in particular locations. Adaptation to that will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of the world's energy."

Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Professor of Physics, Emeritus, was the director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007):

"There are so many times the Earth was warmer than now, or colder than now. We are not affecting the climate change."

Lord Nigel Lawson (British politician, was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher):

"The one thing that is absolutely clear about the science is that it isn't certain, far from it."

The consensus is breaking down because no matter how much the global warming agenda-setters may want us to be, people are not sheep, to be led around and told what to think and what to say. You can only lie to us for so long before the truth exposes your movement for what it is; a dogma based on faulty science and ulterior motives.

Other Headlines:

Gauging Animal Emissions 'too hard'

(Lenore Taylor, The Australian)

Global Warming: Not So Bad?

(Jessica Cheng, Popular Science)

Seven Celebrity Environmentalists in Need of Green 101

(Mairi Beautyman, treehugger.com)

Penn and Teller on Carbon Credits

(Warning: Strong language used for comedic effect)

Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes Climate Change Curriculuum

(John Boudreau, San Jose Mercury News)

NASA Is Out of Line on Global Warming

(Christopher Booker, The Telegraph)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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

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

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

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

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 3 (July 24, 2008)

2008-07-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

Featured Story:

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

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

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

What evidence is that, Mr. Evans?

The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

Read the entire article here. It's well worth your time, and shatters almost every myth about global warming you've ever heard.

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

Scientists Predict Global Warming Will Reduce Number and Intensity of Hurricanes

A staple of the Al Gore (more on him later) fear mongering platform has been to convince people that more global warming equals more, stronger hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, oppressive heat, frigid cold... Anything bad you can possibly think of, Al Gore would like to blame on Global Warming. So tell me, Al Gore: What do you have against kittens?

Global Warming Could Be Causing a Kitten Boom

Sure this is good fun, but it leads me to a more serious point. Al Gore and his Goracles have been spending a lot of time trying to convince us that more warming will inevitably lead to disaster. But isn't it just as likely that a warmer earth will actually be good, not only for humans, but for all life? In earth's history, warmer climates have invariably led to lush, full flora and thriving fauna, and colder climates, well...500 years ago, the Viking colonies on Greenland died out because the climate grew too cold to grow crops there. 230 years ago, New York Harbor froze over, letting people walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Throughout history, cold has been worse for life, and heat has been better. Why has this suddenly changed now?

More Headlines :

Fossil Suggests Antarctica Much Warmer in the Past

Lack of Global Warming Kills Fish

Arctic's Oil Could Meet World's Demands for Three Years

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Who else could it go to but the man himself? In a speech on July 17, Al Gore demanded that the United States, in the next 10 years, abandon all of the electricity generated by fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal etc.). Gore's demands are almost impossible and would be incredibly expensive to implement, but who cares about petty things like reality when "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk...The future of human civilization is at stake."

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 2 (July 15, 2008)

2008-07-15T09:16:00.000-07:00

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

Arctic Ice Looking Pretty Solid

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

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

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

Global Warming May Increase Kidney Stones
(AFP)

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

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

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

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

More Headlines:

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

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

Global Warming: Old News?

(Powerline.com)

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

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

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

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

GreenWatch Newsletter 1 (July 5, 2008)

2008-07-05T09:08:00.000-07:00

The glaciers are breaking up!

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

Global Warming Now Causing Glaciers to Grow?

(CBC News)

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

Featured Story:

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

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

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

Post and author of The Deniers.

More Headlines:

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

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

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

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

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