News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

CO2 isn't the point of contention, it's feedbacks-Dr. David M.W. Evans

2/26/12, "The Skeptics Case," WUWT, Dr. David M. W. Evans, (republished here with permission, PDF link below)

"We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

What the Government Climate Scientists Say

Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.i

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.ii

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.iii The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

What the Skeptics Say

Figure 2: The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.iv

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks....

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.v The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

What the Data Says

The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2even while they got more detailed with more computer power."...


Ed. note: From my reading, people who feel most strongly about the existence of catastrophic man-caused global warming include in that belief that US industry must be muted, and money must be taken from evil Americans and given to the poor or to the UN who will then allegedly give it to the poor. Climate science and social justice are not the same. I understand the continent of Africa has been told billions of dollars are on their way there from evil Americans. Most Americans are broke now and the middle class has become the new poor. Aside from that, slavery has more or less gone out. There are still many billionaires in the US. Try getting the cash from them. You're always free to sell all your belongings and turn the proceeds over to the UN. Have a nice day.

via Behind the Black, Robert Zimmerman. Charts from Dr. Evans article

IPCC lead author views established prior to selection though in any case, 'consensus is a political notion not a scientific one'

2/25/12, "'Consensus' on Global Warming is a Manmade Concept," "International panel selectively chooses scientists it knows will push a 'melting planet' agenda," MichiganCapitolConfidential, T. Gantert

"With the ongoing media coverage of a well-known scientist lying to get confidential documents from the Heartland Institute regarding global warming, there’s been consistent reporting in the media about thescientific consensusthat climate change is manmade.

Numerous articles on blogs and news sites cite that scientific “consensus” of man-made global warming without citing any reference.

The phrase may be a reference to the body of work done over the years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which involves work done by thousands of scientists from more than 120 governments.

John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center and a climatologist from the University of Alabama-Huntsville, says the IPCC’s process does not promote a disparity of opinion on global warming and is more political than scientific. Christy says the problem is the degree of warming. He thinks 90 percent would agree that mankind has some impact on the climate. “But a lower percentage would say it was a dangerous impact. You really can't get a good answer to this,” Christy said.

Christy has served as a “lead author for a report done by the IPCC.

He said he believes a problem is that the scientists selected to be considered by the IPCC are nominated by governments that

"The selection of lead authors through a two-step political process is a problem,” Christy wrote. “Presently, national governments nominate to the IPCC those who over the years, they can generally count on to be consistent with national policy. From this pool, the IPCC itself selects those it wants to be lead authors."

Christy said he believes IPCC-selected authors have significant authority over what they accept and reject when determining a paper’s conclusions, adding that lead authors are allowed to judge their own work against their critics. “This has led to biased information in the assessments and thus raises questions about a catastrophic view of climate change because the

  • full range of evidence is not represented.”

One example Christy cited the work of Penn State University’s Michael Mann, who was a lead author on a report for a chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the email scandal known as “Climategate,” Mann wrote an email to members of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit about how to deal with research that countered their own theories on global warming.

“… I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper,” Mann’s email read. “ … The last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper…” Mann later wrote they should “encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

A Penn State University investigation cleared Mann of any scientific misconduct.

The term ‘consensus science’ will often be appealed to in arguments about climate change. This is a form of ‘argument from authority,’ ” Christy wrote. Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. … the IPCC and other similar assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those who already agree with a particular consensus. The content of these reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals — I often refer to them as the ‘climate establishment’ — who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments

  • are by-in-large
  • dismissed rather than acknowledged.”"


6/2/2011, Europe's governments count on carbon trading profits to fatten their treasuries

via Tom Nelson

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Climate ethics expert says if activist's lie ultimately has good effect then it was right thing to do

2/27/12, "Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert," Bishop Hill

"James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian:
What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland's money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too – maybe he's undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out.
It's good to know that environmentalists feel this way about telling the truth. We have had similar insider views on truth-telling from, for example, the Open University's Joe Smith, who reported the decision to issue tactical lies over the nature of the global warming debate.

Hard also to avoid Stephen Schneider's famous quote:
...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
I guess Dr Garvey has cast his vote for

Here's Richard Betts' comment from the Guardian thread:

Mr Garvey

I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though - I am just telling you that for context).
I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should "fight dirty" does not help our reputation at all. "Fighting dirty" will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.
Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called "climate wars". People's reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.
Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.
Richard Betts (Prof)"

via Tom Nelson

NOAA satellites show coldest week in a decade, Feb. 2012

2/28/12, "NOAA satellites speak again – coldest week for a decade – at 14,000 ft.," by Warwick Hughes

"This global “cold snap” looks more significant than the one we highlighted last month." via Tom Nelson

"Daily Earth Temperatures from satellites"

"Daily averaged temperatures of the Earth are measured by the AMSU flying on the NOAA-15 satellite."


Monday, February 27, 2012

Chris Mooney received taxpayer dollars via the NSF to teach communication tools. Mooney's own favorite tool seems to be the label 'Conspiracy Theory'

How is one set of views a "conspiracy theory" and another set of views, such as Mr. Mooney's own which requires billions of taxpayer dollars, "not a conspiracy theory?"

2/27/12, "James Inhofe Takes the Climate Conspiracy Theory to New Heights—While His Home State Reels from Record Heat," Chris Mooney, Desmog blog

US taxpayer dollars went to Chris Mooney last month for the purpose of helping scientists learn how to communicate their message ("Science: Becoming the Messenger," I don't know what he taught the scientists at the NSF seminar, but his recurring communications tool seems to be ridicule, ie. labeling a view other than his own a 'CONSPIRACY THEORY,' and a person who 'hints' at such views a 'CONSPIRACY THEORIST.' Why aren't Mr. Mooney's expensive ideas conspiracy theories? How does he get to be better? As far as the porn-challenged NSF, it has already admitted it's unable to carry out the purpose for which it was established.

Would the angry Mr. Mooney ridicule Nigel Purvis as a conspiracy theorist?

"Ironically, the ‘cap and trade’ idea that underwrites the global carbon market was originally the brainchild of US Republicans [via George Bush #1]. But this changed because of what one senior US climate negotiator at Kyoto described as a collection of “toxic” ingredients.

There are three issues

constraining industry, sending money abroad, and strengthening the UN –

that are inflammatory on their own right,

Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington....Nigel Purvis, now the president of the Climate Advisers* consultancy in Washington."...


"In 2008, Mr. Purvis served as a senior adviser on climate diplomacy to the Obama-Biden campaign." He is founder and president of Climate Advisers.


Is Nigel Purvis a "conspiracy theorist" for saying the "climate" issue is about those 3 things?


Sign outside Nov. 2010 NSF seminar, the Jan. 2012 offering to feature Chris Mooney.


1/13/12, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv


Dec. 2011, "Science: Becoming the Messenger,"


Sports Illustrated cover, March 12, 2007, using Major League Baseball to sell global warming:

The above wouldn't be a "conspiracy theory" or alarmism of any kind I guess according to Mr. Mooney. ed.

12/17/09, "At Copenhagen global warming talks, Clinton pledges US support for $100 billion fund," Reuters, A. Doyle, via CS Monitor

Dec. 2009, Hillary Clinton in Copenhagen pledging US taxpayer dollars. reuters

via Tom Nelson

If Gleick had accepted Heartland's polite invitation to debate he could have read their donors' nametags

2/27/12, "Heartland’s Super-Secret Donors," Real Science, Steven Goddard

"(Peter) Gleick decided to commit several felonies in order to find out who Heartland’s donors were, rather than show up for the debate he was invited to at Heartland’s benefit dinner.

Had he shown up for the debate, he could have just read the donor’s name tags rather than lying, forging documents and

  • claiming that he just wanted to debate.

The global warming movement is led by the world’s stupidest people."

via Climate Depot

Profiteers can switch focus to global water scare as global warming fades from limelight

2/26/12, "Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21," Dr. Tim Ball

"Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.

Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for one world government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled Only One World: An Awakening Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR, and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control. Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. (Maurice) Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote:

What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.

Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle, water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied,

Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity”. They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,

  • water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

(Stephen) Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required."


2/7/2007, "Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive,” Gleick Provides Testimony to Senate Hearing," Pacific Institute Press Release


2/26/12, "The Funding Imbalance," Mr.Worthing

via Tom Nelson

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Peter Gleick speaks to US Senate in 2007 on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity

2/7/2007, "Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive,” Gleick Provides Testimony to Senate Hearing," Pacific Institute Press Release

"Political distortions of the scientific process have undergone a dramatic rise in Washington over the past six years, according to the Senate testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick’s testimony (download - PDF) was provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity Wednesday. Misuse of science and attacks on scientists, Gleick finds, have been pervasive and categorical.

“Good, independent science – indeed good information in general – is crucial to making good political decisions, Gleick wrote. “It is difficult enough to make intelligent policy choices given the complexities of today’s political, environmental, economic, and social challenges. It is almost impossible when good science or data are ignored or distorted, or when bad science is sought out to support pre-determined political conclusions.”

Gleick made several recommendations to the Senate Committee, including the reinstatement of independent advisory committees, prohibiting the censoring of scientific findings, and encouraging transparency and open access to decision making. He also submitted a comprehensive summary of the types and categories of deceit and abuse in the scientific process (download - PDF). Examples include mischaracterizing arguments, misusing facts, scientific misconduct, personal attacks on scientists, and arguments from ideology rather than evidence.

“In the long run, the truth of whether the earth is round (mostly), goes around the sun (so the best evidence shows), or is warming due to industrial activity (considered ‘very likely’ i.e., more than 90% certainty) will be demonstrated on the global stage,” Gleick wrote. “Short-term political or economic advantage must be trumped by our collective responsibilities to protect public health, the environment, and our national security and to ensure that our decisions are informed by the best available information.”

Dr. Gleick is a MacArthur Fellow and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science. He oversees the Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Program, which was launched in 2005 to respond to and counter the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security. The Institute maintains its Integrity of Science blog at

In 2007, the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security celebrates twenty years of providing research for people and the planet. Founded in 1987 and based in downtown Oakland, the Institute provides independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of protecting the natural world, encouraging sustainable development, and improving global security."

via Tom Nelson

Gleick or no, taxpayers are still footing the biggest bill in history for something that never existed-UK Telegraph

2/25/12, "The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists' endless credulity," UK Telegraph, C. Booker

"More importantly, however, it should focus our attention once again on the fact that we are still being presented with
  • by far the biggest bill in history,
  • to counter a threat

via Tom Nelson

After Obama writes 3 pg. letter to Islamic savages apologizing for accidental burning of religious book they call for killing & beating Americans

2/24/12, "Taliban's Response to Obama's Apology: 'Kill Them, Beat Them, Take Them as Prisoners'," CNS News, Patrick Goodenough

"In the wake of President Barack Obama sending a three-page letter to Afghan President Hamid Kharzai, apologizing for U.S. forces having mistakenly burned some Qur'ans at a U.S. air base in Afghanistan, the Taliban is calling on Muslims to kill Americans or beat them and take them as prisoners.

The call for violence against U.S. troops in Afghanistan came as Muslims in South Asia and elsewhere prepared for Friday prayers--a potentially volatile time.

Islamist groups in Pakistan, meanwhile, drummed up protests against the burning of the Qur’ans, with some leaders appealing for jihad against the United States....

Echoing incendiary calls by the Taliban for Muslims to react violently to the mishandling of the religious texts, militant leaders

  • charged that the incident was a deliberate plot against Muslims.
We should not be satisfied with mere protests and empty slogans but the military bases of the invaders, their military convoys and their troops should become a target of our courageous attacks,” spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement directed to Taliban fighters and the “zealous and faithful people of Afghanistan.”

Kill them, beat them, take them as prisoners and teach them such a lesson that they never summon the courage to abuse the Holy Qur’an again,” he said....

'Only burning White House can make up for burning Koran,' says Iran military official

2/25/12, "Iran military official: Only burning White House can make up for burning Koran," Haaretz

"Commander of Iran's Basij force tell Fars news agency that Muslims worldwide should reject Obama's apology following the burning of the holy Muslim text in a U.S. base in Afghanistan." via Atlas Shrugs


2/23/12, "Obama Immigration Policy Allowed Saudi Muslim Qaeda Fan on Flight After Drunk Driving, Attempted Murder," Debbie Schlussel


Friday, February 24, 2012

Peter Gleick requests short leave of absence from Pacific Institute

2/24/12, "Peter Gleick requests short-term leave of absence from Oakland's Pacific Institute," Marin Independent Journal, Dana Hull

"Peter Gleick, a nationally known expert on water and climate issues, on Friday asked for a short-term leave of absence from the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, where he is co-founder and president.

Gleick has been embroiled in controversy since admitting this week that he used a false name to obtain confidential documents from the libertarian Heartland Institute, a pro-industry think tank known for minimizing the risks of global warming.

The Heartland Institute released a string of emails Friday that Gleick sent to Heartland earlier this year that show how Gleick pretended to be a Heartland board member to get copies of documents sent to a gmail email address. Heartland has set up a website detailing the e-mails at

"The emails reveal how Gleick "phished" the documents by stealing the identity of a Heartland board member, an act to which he publicly admitted in his February 20 Huffington Post confession," said the Heartland Institute. "Minor redactions have been made to the emails to protect the individual privacy of those involved."

Gleick, 55, is a well known water expert and MacArthur "genius award" winner who has published widely and frequently testifies before Congress. But his actions have shocked the scientific community, concerned funders of the Pacific Institute and tarnished his reputation. He was scheduled to give the keynote address Thursday at the 30th annual Water Law Conference in San Diego, sponsored by the American Bar Association, but withdrew. He also cancelled plans to join the board of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland.

"Given the events of the past week, I would like, with the permission of the Board, to take a temporary, short-term leave of absence from the Institute," said Gleick in a letter released Friday. "I believe such a leave would allow the Institute staff to continue to refocus on its work, while permitting the Board to conduct a full and fair review and determine an appropriate course of action."" via Tom Nelson


Catholic leaders urge followers to believe in trillion dollar catastrophic man made climate change for sake of Christ, Ash Wed. kickoff

We must "reduce our consumption of energy for the sake of Christ." Man caused global warming "can cause loss of life," "we must listen to the scientists warning us." If it's scientifically proven why is it necessary to use religious leaders to sell it as a sacred and urgent obligation backed up by Bible verses? "Over-consumption and limitless economic growth" cause climate change. (No mention of CO2).

2/24/12, "Operation Noah's Ash Wednesday declaration on climate change," The Tablet, International Catholic News Weekly,

"Call to put green issues at the heart of faith"

Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, have given their backing to a call for believers to see the environment as a central faith issue. The Ash Wednesday declaration issued this week by the Christian lobby movement on climate change, Operation Noah, is a seven-point call to action to urge people to understand environmental issues in the light of biblical theology.

Read the declaration below:

Climate change and the purposes of God: a call to the Church

The likelihood of runaway global warming, which will diminish food security, accelerate the extinction of huge numbers of species and make human life itself impossible in some parts of the world, raises questions that go to the heart of our Christian faith.

What should our relationship be with God as both the origin and the end of all things? How do we balance our energy and material consumption with the needs of the poorest communities, and of future generations and other species? How do we sustain hope in the midst of fear and denial? How can we encourage global cooperation, challenge unsustainable economic systems and change our lifestyles? These fundamental questions prompt this urgent call to the Church.


‘How many are your works, Lord!

In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures...

May the Lord rejoice in his works.' (Psalm 104:24, 31)

According to the witness of our Scriptures, everything that we have, life and the means of life, comes to us as gift. This is the ground of our worship. The beauty and harmony of God's creation is for all cultures a source of human wellbeing, spiritual nourishment and joy. Christians understand God's relation to creation in three ways. All reality comes from God the Father; the flourishing of the earth and its future are foundational to the mission of God (and therefore to the Church's mission). God embraces material reality in Jesus in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). God the Spirit gives life to all reality at all times and in all places. ‘The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit' (Romans 5:5) overflows in our love and care for all God's creatures.


‘I appointed watchmen over you and said; "Listen to the sound of the trumpet!"' (Jeremiah 6:17)

In recent decades, and with increasing urgency, climate scientists have warned of the dangers of catastrophic climate change resulting from human activity. Instability in weather systems is already bringing destruction and suffering to millions of people. In the light of the best knowledge we have, climate change could result in the loss of livelihoods and sometimes of life for huge numbers of people and the extinction of countless species. This matters because the well-being of all creation matters to God (Psalm 145:9).

Prophets are those who speak truth, usually uncomfortable truth, to their generation. In ancient Israel, prophets were always shadowed by false prophets, representing the ruling powers. We must listen to the scientists warning us of approaching dangers, exercise discernment, and be wary of ‘false prophets' representing the vested interests of the powerful.


‘Jesus said; "The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!"' (Mark 1:14-15)

Continuing to pollute the atmosphere when we know the dangers, goes against what we know of God's ways and God's will. We are failing to love not only the earth, but our neighbours and ourselves, who are made in God's image. God grieves over the destruction of creation and so should we. Repentance means finding creative, constructive and immediate ways of addressing the danger. It happens when God's Spirit enables a change of mind and change of heart, prompting a turn from past wrong and a decision to change direction. For our generation, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels has become

  • essential to Christian discipleship.


The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish with the earth. The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.' (Isaiah 24:4-5)

Humans, made in God's image, have unique responsibility for the wellbeing of creation (Genesis 1:26, 2:15). We are to care for the earth because it is gift, the product of God's love. No sparrow falls without God knowing. Humanity has always had the capacity to destroy our environment, but today we have this to an unprecedented extent. Whereas previous generations did not know the damage they were causing, we do. We must use our power wisely to promote the flourishing of future generations and the diversity of life on earth. This is the responsibility of every Church and every believer.


‘He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. The mountains will bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. He will defend the afflicted among the people, and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor.' (Psalm 72:2-4)

God is just and requires justice in response from us. This justice applies to poor communities already suffering the devastating consequences of climate change, to future generations, and to all other creatures. The prophets put economic behaviour at the forefront of their call to justice. The primary driver of human induced climate change is the belief that prosperity depends on limitless consumption of the earth's resources. Today, the challenge is to seek a different, sustainable economy, based on the values of human flourishing and the well-being of all creation, not on the assumption of unlimited economic growth, on overconsumption, exploitative interest and debt.

To seek justice for all, for present and future generations, our authorities must encourage and enable all people to live fairly and sustainably. Acting justly requires us to hold our governments and corporations to account.


‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.' (Matthew 7:12)

Christ teaches us to love all our neighbours, not just our own family and friends. This love extends to our grandchildren and future generations. People in poor communities are mostly innocent of any role in causing climate change, whilst the nations that pollute the most, refuse to accept their responsibilities. Loving our neighbour requires us to reduce our consumption of energy for the sake of Christ, who suffers with those who suffer. To live simply and sustainably contributes significantly to human flourishing. As the nations fight over dwindling energy resources, Christians need to bear witness that the way to life, and not death, is the way of non-retaliation. In the future, Christians may also be called to receive into their communities refugees forced to leave their lands through climate change.


‘May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.' (Romans 15:13)

Hope in God motivates us to take action that can lead to transformation, for by God's power at work within us, God is able to accomplish more than we can ask or imagine. Despite the strong probability of very serious effects from global warming, for Christians despair is not an option. It is when we follow Christ and the way of the Cross, in response to his grace, that we experience the God of hope who gives us joy and peace. We are called to faith and action in trusting response to the God made known by the Holy Spirit in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Lord of all life. As Christians we can live in hope, despite the dangers that threaten us.

Through God we hope for new life for all creation (Romans 8:19-25). Our planet, made new by the meeting of heaven and earth, will have an abiding value in the purpose of God (Revelation 21:1-5). We are called to live and work with hope in response to God's gift, and in the light of God's future: the promised coming of Christ's reign over all.

O God, who set before us the great hope that your Kingdom shall come on earth and taught us to pray for its coming: give us grace to discern the signs of its dawning and to work for the perfect day when the whole world shall reflect your glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Percy Dearmer)"


Ed. note: We all want clean air and water and to preserve Nature. That is something quite different from the theory that excess CO2 is destroying the planet. Why use the generic term "pollution" which is understood quite differently than the specific issue holding up the entire climate industry which is excess CO2? I don't think deliberate deception was advocated in the Holy Bible especially when enriching CO2 trading investment bankers was one of the outcomes.

via Tom Nelson

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Obama 2013 budget 'Christmas in July' for green scams via DOD, tax credits for wind & solar, US Navy now doing biofuel deal w. climate sewer Australia

US military now a cash register for green scams, hijab preferred. Does Obama's new focus on Australia, the sewer of the global 'climate' industry, connect in any way with extreme warmist Kevin Rudd's recent return?

2/20/12, "National Defense and President Obama’s 2013 Clean Energy Budget," Triplepundit, Tina Casey

"As far as clean energy and green jobs go, President Obama’s 2013 budget includes a Christmas-in-July package of initiatives that are designed to help pull the U.S. out of recession while transitioning the economy to cleaner, safer, more reliable and less price-spikey forms of energy. Those last two items – price and reliability of supply – are especially important to the Department of Defense, which will see its rate of growth slow dramatically under the new budget.In that light, the President’s clean energy package goes beyond a boost for domestic economic health. It will also play an important role in U.S. defense operations overseas, especially as actions in the Middle East draw down and attention pivots to the Asia-Pacific region.

The 2013 budget and new green jobs

Daniel Weiss over at Think Progress provides a good rundown of the impacts of the clean energy package. Along with environment-related public health and global warming initiatives, it includes tax credits and other forms of assistance for wind, solar and other renewable energy companies, and more funding for research and development for renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced manufacturing technologies.

That all adds up to tens of thousands of new green jobs, many of which are in traditional union trades, such as electrician and mechanic, which will create new opportunities for reviving the blue collar middle class.

The new budget also includes about $1 billion in an energy package for the military that focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency upgrades. Aside from creating thousands more green jobs in the U.S., it will provide a big boost for programs like the Air Force’s jet biofuels initiative, the Navy’s Green Fleet, and the Army’s Net Zero goal of powering its bases with renewable on-site or locally-sourced energy.

Clean energy over there

The Department of Defense also has been introducing solar power and other new technologies to its overseas bases and to ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, even in combat zones, and this is where it starts to get really interesting.

Until now, U.S. energy security strategy has focused on securing access to the global petroleum supply. However, just within the past couple of weeks there have been some strong hints that the U.S. is also turning its attention to securing renewable energy supplies in key strategic regions.

Namely, as the U.S. strategy shifts from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region, Australia is emerging as an important future source of renewable biofuel.

Australia, biofuels and U.S. national defense

Australia was a linchpin of America’s operations in the Asia-Pacific during World War II, and President Obama appears to be ensuring that the country is a solid partner as the U.S. once again ramps up its presence in the region.

In terms of Australia as a source of biofuel, the country has been heavily engaged in biofuel development and earlier this month Chris Tindal, the Navy’s Director for Operational Energy, toured the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology to promote America’s interest in drop-in biofuels.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has partnered with the U.S. algae biofuel company OriginOil to develop algae-derived oil as an energy-boosting additive to drop-in biofuels. To that end, OriginOil has formed a joint venture with an Australian subsidiary to develop biorefineries in “strategic locations around the world,” initially focusing

  • on the U.S. and Australia."...


Ed. note: No wonder Obama is fine with our soldiers being murdered in Afghanistan. He needs the $6 billion US tax dollars a month to give his green scam cronies. It was quite unnecessary for Peter Gleick to give Heartland a second thought much less commit a crime to obtain information about them. It should be obvious that Gleick's side has won.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

US taxpayer dollars funneled to Peter Gleick group via EPA

2/22/12, "EPA gave Gleick’s group $468,000 in grants," Steve Milloy, Junk Science

Start dates on 4 random grants below, 2/14/2005, 5/15/2007, 10/01/2006, 9/1/2002

"Money well spent, we’re sure.

  • $25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.
  • $100,000 for “The identified issue for this project is exposure to diesel emissions and other environmental hazards associated with inappropriate land use within West Oakland.”
  • $223,675 to “make use of a broad-based multistakeholder group (i.e. the West Oakland Toxic Reduction Collaborative) to assess conditions, develop solutions and support and leverage their implementation as related to environmental and public health burdens from air and other toxics.
  • $120,000 for “This amendment extends the project and budget ending dates from August 31, 2003 to December 31, 2003. There is no change in the approved EPA funding amount of $50,000 for your diesel truck emission reduction initiative. The conditions numbered 1 through 7 in the award remain in full force and effect.”" (project started 9/1/2002)

2/21/12, What are the depths of Peter Gleick’s depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack? [UPDATED]

via Climate Depot

Massively influential website Daily Kos cites too much snow and not enough snow as terrifying proof of something

An elaborate post on Daily Kos with lots of charts sells new version of global warming, ie "local extreme weather." Too much snow is as scary as not enough snow.

2/21/12, "
One Month Ago : Daily Kos Cited Warm Weather In Europe And Lack Of Snow In Colorado As Proof Of Global Warming," Real Science

"Flowers are blooming
in England in January more than a month early. The Vail, Colorado ski resort has no natural snow for the first time in 30 years of operation."...

Oops. Below, Steamboat Springs skier, 2/20/12

1/20/12, Daily Kos

Steamboat Springs, Colorado broke their all time one day snow record this weekend

Posted By: Kristin Park on February 20, 2012 4:04 pm

Today marks a new record for Steamboat, Colorado with the most snow of any resort in Colorado in a 24-hour period with a monstrous 27 inches at mid-mountain and the summit. Since the 5 a.m. report, another seven inches have floated down bringing the total to a whopping 34 inches!

Steamboat Crushes Snow Record | the ski channel"


Ed. note: Either way Kos wants you to know Americans are bad and must pay.

via Climate Depot, photo from The Ski Channel, 2/20/12.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Feb. 2012 study from American Geophysical Union says no Antarctic ice melting in past 30 yrs.

World's largest body of frozen water remains frozen. Sea levels in no danger of rising from Antarctic Ice melt via study of past 30 years.

"Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/12/2011GL050713," (see bottom of page 1)

Feb. 21, 2012, "A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010) based on regional atmospheric climate modeling," J. T. M. Lenaerts,1 M. R. van den Broeke,1 W. J. van de Berg,1 E. van Meijgaard,2 and P. Kuipers Munneke1, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters

Received 17 January 2012; accepted 21 January 2012; published 21 February 2012.

page 4. "3.4. Trend

[15] We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006]....


No significant trend in the ice sheet-integrated SMB is found
over the period 1979–2010
, and
  • only (insignificant) trends exist regionally.
Snowfall is characterized by strong interannual
(s = 114 Gt y 1) and intra-annual variability (s =
30 Gt mo 1). Snowdrift sublimation is the main ablation
process and shows little interannual variability (s = 9 Gt y 1).

Acknowledgments. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments. This work was supported by funding from the ice2sea
programme from the European Union 7th Framework Programme, grant
226375. Ice2sea contribution 061.
[18] The Editor thanks David Bromwich and an anonymous reviewer"...

via Tom Nelson

How can Peter Gleick complain about funding? In 2004 alone US gov. diverted $5.1 billion taxpayer dollars to "climate change funding," per GAO report

2/20/12, August 2005 GAO Report, "Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete"

"Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $5.1
billion in 2004
(116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3 billion to $5.1
billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation."


Commenter to Climate Audit post re: Peter Gleick confession, 2/20/12


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

Gleick writes:

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate [is conspiracy to prevent scientific debate?] desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

Gleick pleads for debate now? Against forces that “prevent this debate….” Yet the original climategate emails reveal systematic effort by climate scientists to prevent genuine scientific debate about climate change….

organizations like HI, he implicitly alleges, “prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.” Yet the climategate emails indicate a conspiracy to defeat FOIA laws exercised to expand transparency needed to conduct science,

Clearly, Gleick is internally struggling with the enormous hypocrisies involved since climategate – and failing to cope well."


2/21/12, What are the depths of Peter Gleick’s depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack? [UPDATED]


Peter Gleick Pacific Institute donors include possible taxpayer sources such as EPA, NOAA, and the UN

2/20/12, At least 2 Soros groups are among Gleick's donors, Ceres, and Open Society

Pacific Institute 2009 Funders

"California Environmental Protection Agency
California Public Utilities Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
US Environmental Protection Agency"


Board of Directors of Pacific Institute includes Dr. Peter Gleick


How can Peter Gleick complain about funding when in 2004 alone the US government diverted $5.1 billion taxpayer dollars to "climate change" funding?


2/21/12, What are the depths of Peter Gleick’s depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack? [UPDATED]



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.