Newest Videos Added:

By Jeff Jacoby

SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:

Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures - a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.

If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you'd be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they'd thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming "deniers" for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?

No doubt.

But it isn't such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.

This great little video exposes the truth about THE CENTRAL ISSUE related to the whole theory that CO2 drives climate change and in particular global warming.   The evidence that CO2 drives global warming is found in the ice core samples.  Al Gore and all the fear mongers claim the ice core samples show that CO2 increase corresponds to temperature increase.  But climatologists who have also looked at the ice core data show that increases in CO2 levels follow warming trends, by 100s of years!   CO2 increase does not proceed warming trends so it cannot possibly be the cause of warming trends.  So the only real question about the CO2 hysteria is 'who is telling the truth about the ice core samples?" 

I personally believe Al Gore is LYING.  He has so many conflicts of interest it's not even funny.  He is a major share holder in one of the key players in the whole carbon credit trading scam.  Watch this little video and see if you don't agree.

Western media completely ignores major report from Japan’s Energy Commission

By Steve Watson

A major scientific report by leading Japanese academics concludes that global warming is not man-made and that the overall warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century onwards has now stopped.

Unsurprisingly the report, which was released last month, has been completely ignored by the Western corporate media.

The report was undertaken by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER), the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields.

The JSER acts as a government advisory panel, much like the International Panel on Climate Change did for the UN.

The JSER’s findings provide a stark contrast to the IPCC’s, however, with only one out of five top researchers agreeing with the claim that recent warming has been accelerated by man-made carbon emissions.

by Marlo Lewis

As you may have heard, there has been no net warming of the planet since 2001, and no subsequent year was a warm as 1998 (admittedly a year with a major El Nino). A recent study by Keenlyside et al. (2008)

As Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute explained at a recent congressional hearing, the suite of 21 climate models used in the IPCC’s mid-range emissions scenario (A1B) are on the verge of failing to reproduce actual climate data.

During the past 5 to 20 years, the observed trend in the average global temperature has been so low that it is starting to push the lower bounds of the climate models’ range of temperature predictions for that period. If 2009 is as cool as 2008 (with a La Nina brewing in the Pacific Ocean, that is not unlikely), then even the least sensitive of these models will be overestimating the actual amount of warming. And if Keenlyside is correct, and another decade elapses without significant warming, the models will have clearly failed.

The most important point for policymakers and citizens, as Michaels notes, is that if the models predict too much warming, then all model-based assessments of global warming impacts on agriculture, human health, extreme weather, etc. will be similarly overestimated.

So what do you do if you’re a climate alarmist and the world isn’t warming up as much as you said it would? Why, you redefine “climate sensitivity.” You claim that agriculture, health, weather, etc. are more “sensitive” to increases in global temperature than scientists once believed. You say that less warming than the IPCC warned us about will lead to worse impacts than the IPCC warned us about. That’s the gist of a recent IPCC-sponsored study, as summarized here by AP/MSNBC.com. concludes that “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade” due to natural oscillations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

by Paul Chesser
Climate Strategies Watch

I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.

This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.

The “Greenhouse Effect” Isn’t Even True for Real Greenhouses

Two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, have recently published a very carefully researched scientific paper with absolutely astounding implications for the contentious “Climate Change” issue. The paper, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (thanks to the Thunderbolts.info forum for the link), is fairly technical, and at 114 pages (including references), not an easy read. But it deserves close study by anyone who is interested in the truth. Gerlich and Tscheuschner have falsified the very idea of the “Greenhouse Effect”, calling it a “fictitious mechanism,” and show conclusively that “CO2 is completely irrelevant” to climate change.


The “Greenhouse Effect” is the idea that a greenhouse, like the inside of your car, heats up in the sun because:

   1. The glass windows allow sunlight to pass through into the greenhouse;
   2. The light heats up the inside of the greenhouse;
   3. The glass windows block the escape of the resulting infrared light or heat radiation (we cannot see infrared light - the “night vision” scopes used by the military convert infrared light into visible light).

By Jeff Poor

Imagine this – a former high-ranking and well-respected government official telling your children that they know something you don’t. Is this Cold War-era Soviet Union? Nope. It’s Maryland, and the official is former Vice President Al Gore.

In audio aired on the Feb. 4 “Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Gore was advising school children on the eve of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, presumably at the University of Maryland Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference. He said that it’s up to them to question their parents on conventional wisdom in order to overcome the challenges of modern America, one of them being global warming.

By Steven Milloy

Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman -- and it’s simply out of this world.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.  Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate.  The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming.  The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

From the Blog of Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That

It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. - Anthony