What do kangaroos, mooses and Mom have in common?
Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don’t know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?
I don’t know who’s funnier, a daughter who tells her mother to stop her farts to stop global warming or a mother who writes to a newspaper doctor to find out if its true.
Thanks, Erin, for sending along a great laugh!
EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, “Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management.”
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, “Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States.”
That arbiter of all things noble. That trustworthy organization that only wants to do good for mankind. Of course I’m talking about the UN.
They wouldn’t be deceitful in their “truth seeking” about global warming? Not just to influence how our governments act? Would they?
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
I think they just admitted to using unsupported statements to scare governments into action. Didn’t they? No. They couldn’t have because:
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
Remember those Himalayan glaciers that were melting by 2035? How about that IPCC science that is “settled”? Well…never mind.
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Yep. I get my best science from little know Indians quoted in old magazines.
Since it has happened at GW events in New York, Washington D.C., Copenhagen and now Salt Lake City, this can no longer be considered a coincidence.
A downtown protest of the climate change talks in Copenhagen became a victim of Wednesday’s snowstorm.
“Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions,” said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.
I love Ms. Major’s straight-faced explanation. Don’t you?
Nonetheless, despite the low turnout and completely inappropriate weather the true believers carried on:
It didn’t take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they’d planned to use for their “scream-in,” an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.
Still, they chatted with a few passers-by during the commuter-hour protest near the Gateway, and explained that, blizzard aside, climate change is expected to bring chaos to the global climate, said Major.
Finally, Ms Major delighted me again with her candor:
…As for the snow, it’s not entirely new; a protest she attended last year in Washington, D.C., suffered a similar fate.
“There is always the irony element,” Major said.
Indeed there is. Thank you God for such a hearty laugh. Keep up the good work!
Cows, then moose and now…
PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
Sorry Lucy. We’re now “troublemakers” for having you as our canine companion. You make us “unsustainable” so you’ll have to go.
Puleeeaaase….. Can someone say that the emporer has no clothes?
First China praises its one child policy as a cure for GW. Now the Canadian national newspaper follows suit.
The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post
The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Notice that it is a “disaster” that too many people have been created in God’s image. Think of that. While you may consider that newborn a “blessing” there are people like, Ms. Francis, who consider him a part of a “disaster” that needs to be prevented by a “planetary law”.
How have we gotten to the point in our society where thought leaders can say such things with no risk of challenge?
In case we didn’t appreciate how deeply intrusive to individual liberty and economic vitality controlling carbon emissions really is, we can now thank the Chinese for bringing it into sharp focus.
Population control called key to deal
By Li Xing (China Daily)
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
“Fits right in” is right. This from a country that uses forced abortion to enforce its one-child policy. It unashamedly defends that brutal policy despite the carnage it has wrought. It celebrates it even though it has resulted in a shortage of women because boys are more highly prized in that society. It claims great societal benefit even though it has created an aging population that it will not be able to support in a few years resulting a societal time-bomb of ill cared for seniors.
Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.
As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.
Remember that this way of thinking is very close to that of those pushing the GW strategy. Words have consequences and thoughts drive policy.
Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex
Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. …
…Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card…
…”This is sheer discrimination. Ritt Bjerregaard is abusing her position as Lord Mayor in using her power to prevent us carrying out our perfectly legal job. I don’t understand how she can be allowed to contact people in this way,” [Sex Workers Interest Group] Spokeswoman Susanne Møller tells avisen.dk.
But at least they don’t have to pay for it!
The GW alarmists appear to have unwittingly confirmed our suspicions: their emails to one another demonstrate that they manipulate data and conspire to keep “skeptics” from being heard.
This from the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole:
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet…
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Here’s a gem of an email about data manipulation:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
“Trick?” “Hide?” That’s right. They admit tricking you to hide an apparent temperature decline. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the argument. What temperature decline you might ask? Why the one they have suppressed and the one that the media ignores.
Here’s another email talking about the lack of rising temperatures:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
So here are these neutral scientists (Youknow. The one’s that only follow the evidence.) doubting the evidence because it doesn’t fit the argument.
But surly these revered scientists wouldn’t try to hide the facts illegally? Not so fast:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
But surely these colleagues only disagree on the facts. They’re generally good people and not driven by petty personal gripes? Think again:
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
The death of a colleague is “cheering news”? So much for these “worlds leading climate scientists”. I would feel horrible gloating over the death of a competitor. But apparently not these guys.
The nail in the coffin? Here’s hoping so. They’ve tricked us enough.