A New Group Trying To Dispel Kyoto Hysteria and Lefty Fevers

[rbacon]

www.nrsp.com
While individual scientists, engineers and economists have spoken out about the serious flaws in the Kyoto Protocol and other carbon dioxide emission (CO2) control schemes, much more is needed. In particular, a high profile, independent and professional non-profit entity is urgently required that can effectively counter the government relations and communications of today's powerful and well-funded environmental lobby. This is the purpose of the NRSP. Taking advantage of our substantive understanding of the issue, NRSP is well positioned to effectively mobilize Canadians to force government to deal with climate change in a more realistic fashion than through the control of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’.

Goals for 2006/07:

NRSP’s first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada needs CO2 reduction plans. CO2 is very unlikely to be a substantial driver of climate change and is not a pollutant. Global climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon and so governments should focus on solving environmental problems over which we have influence (air, land and water pollution being obvious examples). NRSP will articulate a vision that also promotes assisting our most vulnerable citizens adapt to climate change while encouraging continued research in this exceptionally complex field.
Become recognized by media, government, industry and ordinary Canadians as the most reputable voice for the promotion of science-based climate change policy.
Identify and track the positions of MPs and MLAs across the country in order to identify, and assist, politicians willing to support developing climate and pollution policy based on the most up-to-date science, engineering and economics.
Have a measurable impact on the public's understanding of climate change, with a target of significantly lessening support for implementation of CO2 controls.
Strategy:

Create a much stronger and more public debate concerning climate and pollution policy by:

distinguishing legitimate concerns about climate change and pollution from unsupportable claims that humans are a significant contributor to climate change
showing how, in many cases, the promotion of severe greenhouse gas restrictions is not beneficial to Canadians or the environment and merely reflect predetermined agendas and strong vested interests
Tactics:
Direct media input (OpEds, letters, media appearances) from non-governmental, non-industry climate scientists and NRSP executives
Establishment of an experts speaker's bureau for public appearances, media interviews and government testimony
Convening well-publicized news conferences with experts in the field
Coordinating unbiased public opinion polling on the issue
Direct mail campaigns
Email and Internet newsletters to NRSP supporters and other concerned Canadians
Public education campaigns
Consumer advocacy based on the latest developments in science, engineering and economics concerning climate change and pollution.






Copyright 2006, NRSP NRSP background | the NRSP strategy | get involved ! | NRSP people | contact info | home

[J.B. Stone]

[Blue Canadian]

NRSP deserves all the support they can get. It is imperative to have a group of reputable scientists standing up for the science of climatology, and not the fundraising hype of Global Warming(TM). Even though it brands them as "deniers", and, quite likely, hurts their careers.

When all politicians have to convert to "green" causes and issue ever greater jingo-isms proclaiming their devotion to the environment - it is absolutely vital to have a voice of reason to counter allure of falling for quick fixes to solve alarmist nonsense.

It is only proper that the public is concerned about their role in the environment, and that they should wish to find ways to improve not only their quality of life, but to preserve and enhance the wildlife and environment around them. But vague concerns are easily manipulated, twisted and co-opted by greedy opportunists: their hyperbole and lies can only be fended off by an educated public.

Kudos to nrsp for standing up to be that voice of reason.

http://nrsp.com/getinvolved.html

[Blue Canadian]

Great commentary by Paul Driessen on the politcal and monetary roots behind Global Warming(TM). It's not the science that drives it - it's the philosophical elaboration of statism, wrapped up in a new flag, and finding easy money.

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Paul Driessen
Bio: Paul Driessen
Date: February 6, 2007

Global warming ethics, pork and profits
Global warming alarmism generates political and financial incentives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Dominant media” editors and others frequently accuse climate disaster skeptics of working for organizations that received funding from corporations. The accusation is intended to squelch debate on the merits – by implying that any such writer or organization should not be trusted, as they have a financial stake in the issue – which believers in climate catastrophe scenarios supposedly do not have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit a global warming agenda. As Will Rogers observed, “with Congress, every time they make a joke, it’s a law. And every time they make a law, it’s a joke.”

However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we need to recognize that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed “climate protection” laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. It’s why we must acknowledge that money to be made, and power to be gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major reason so many are getting on the climate “consensus” bandwagon.

In accusing ExxonMobil of giving “more than $19 million since the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period. It’s a pittance compared to what US environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.

It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the US, EU and UN spent since 1993 (some $80 billion all together) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact that the Exxon grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and many other efforts.

Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why might others support climate alarmism?

Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says.” Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.

Corporate actions that cause even one death are dealt with severely; but praise is heaped on federal mileage standards that cause hundreds of deaths, as cars are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and reduce emissions. High energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to market forces – but praised if imposed by government “to prevent climate change.” Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to create jobs, tax revenues and enhanced security; but subsidizing wind power to generate 2% of our electricity is lauded, even if giant turbines despoil millions of acres and kill millions of birds.

Alarmist rhetoric has also redefined corporate social responsibility, created the Climate Action Partnership and launched the emerging Enviro-Industrial Complex.

Environmental activists have turned climate fears into successful fund-raising tools – and a brilliant strategy for achieving their dream of controlling global resource use, technological change and economic development, through laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns. Recent developments promise to supercharge these efforts.

Environmental Defense is collaborating with Morgan Stanley, to promote emission trading systems and other climate change initiatives – giving ED direct monetary and policy stakes in the banking, investment and political arenas, and in any carbon allowance or cap-and-trade programs Congress might enact. Other environmental groups, companies and Wall Street firms will no doubt follow their lead.

ED designed and led the disingenuous campaign that persuaded many healthcare agencies to ban DDT, resulting in millions of deaths from malaria. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, ED and other groups still post deceitful claims about DDT on their websites, further delaying progress against this killer disease. By blaming climate change for malaria, they deflect criticism for their vile actions.

Climate catastrophe claims enable activists to gain official advisory status with companies and governments on environmental issues. They also make it “ethical” for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose power generation in Third World countries, where few have access to electricity – and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 first class jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a trans-Atlantic trip to receive an environmental prize and lecture Americans on saving the Earth – because at least he didn’t use his private jet.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics.

Some worry that this could become a license to further redefine corporate ethics, present self-interest as planet-saving altruism, and profit from questionable arrangements with environmental groups and Congress. Certainly, cap-and-trade rules will create valuable property rights and reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, often by replacing old, inefficient, high-polluting plants that they want to retire anyway.

DuPont and BP will get money for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection equipment, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Environmental activists will be able to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in still more cash. Insurance companies can blame global warming for rate increases and coverage denials.

Lobbying and deal-brokering will enter a new era. As Thenardier the innkeeper observed in Les Miserables, “When it comes to fixing prices, there are lots of tricks he knows. Jees, it’s just amazing how it grows.” Indeed, the opportunities to “game the system” will be limited only by one’s “eco-magination.”

To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are creating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Were it real, we’d need to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else could we eliminate 80–90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has always been anything but stable?

Think lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment minister’s latest prescription: World War II rationing, no meat or cheese, restrictions on air travel, no veggies that aren’t grown locally. France wants a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Others want to put little solar panels on African huts, while kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for trading away their people’s right to generate electricity and emit CO2.

We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new energy technologies. But when we demand immediate action to prevent exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs that don’t work, create enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless families. That is shortsighted and immoral.

Paul Driessen
Eco-Imperialism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biography - Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power · Black Death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read other commentaries by Paul Driessen.
Visit Paul Driessen's website at http://www.eco-imperialism.com/index.php

[Fabulous Fred]

<b>The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.</b>

This is a fact that not many people know about, and quite a few people, would like that there was no evidence to back this fact, because some people would like the world to believe that human activity is the cause for global warming on Earth. I am not advocating that releasing harmful gases, and chemicals in the oceans and atmosphere are good, but after a few years of research, I have come to understand that global warming is happening in the Solar System, not just on Earth.

Some people just want to listen to what some environmentalists are claiming, that global warming is happening because of human activity, and we are the cause for the extreme changes in climate we have been seeing lately getting worse and worse.

I will let now the facts speak for themselves as to what is really happening.

<b>
Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically </b>

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

<b>
Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter </b>

In my numerical simulations, the loss of the vortices results in a global temperature change of about 10 K, which destabilizes the atmosphere and thereby leads to the formation of new vortices. After formation, the large vortices are eroded by turbulence over a time of 60 years—consistent with observations of the White Ovals—until they disappear and the cycle begins again.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02470.html

<b>Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find </b>

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

<b>
Pluto thought to be warming up
Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system's smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and it probably does not have rings.</b>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 697309.htm

The following is a site which was made by several scientists who have no links with any government, or corporation, their findings are very interresting and give a different picture as to what is causing global warming. I can't quote any excerpts as there is a copyright issue, but I will post the link. Anyone interested in that information should read that site.

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_77

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32

[WheatKing]

<b>The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.</b>

See.. all the pollution we're causing is drifting out into space and affecting other planets!!!

It's the *only* logical conclusion.. our ingrained guilt complex means it HAS to be our fault..

please send money now.. your donations can help stop extra-planetary warming.. for as little as a coffee a day.. your donation will help slow the damage being done to other planets.

[Fabulous Fred]

It is obvious that THE SUN which is it's most active phase in the last 11,300 years according to astro-physicists is the warming factor.

Who is interested in the truth? Not the Powers That Be. They have an agenda.

<b>Guv. seeks to yank climatologist who disagrees on warming

Says contradictions interfere with state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases </b>

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.


Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.


His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

[Fabulous Fred]

<b>Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?</b>

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

<b>Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.</b> We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

<b>Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years.</b> Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

<b>In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie.Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?</b>

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

<b>I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth.</b> Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

<b>Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT,</b> renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." <b>A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. </b>It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

<b>As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun."</b> Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

<b>I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics.</b> He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

[Fabulous Fred]

....and now for news from the fringe. (something lefties will believe)

<b>Gore: Bush paying scientists to dispute warming

'They're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people'</b>

--CNN ("the Debate is OVER" network)

MADRID , SPAIN (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.

During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."

Gore was the Democratic nominee against Bush in the 2000 presidential election. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, is up for the best documentary Oscar.

-- CNN's Al Goodman


<i><b> <Note to myself: Remember to thank AL GORE for inventing the internet! haaa haaa haaaaa!!> </i> </b>

[NorthOf45]

I get a kick out of this as well. People seem to forget that there was an ice age. Was man responsible for THAT change?