Monday, November 10, 2008

2008 BELOW Normal??

1) Firstly, the linked/shown graphic, nor the accompanying story will probably never find its way to a "main stream" (liberally biased) media outlet. It simply does Not follow the template that the Earth is warming and man kind is in jeopardy of destruction unless we save ourselves from ourselves. (Stop living well) We wonder IF the reverse were true (the majority of the country was ABOVE normal) that we would have silence on that information? Of course we know the answer to this. Only warmth/destructive storms are news worthy and fit into the "Climate Change" model of news.

2) Meanwhile in Washington we will soon have a new president who is fully behind the kool-aid drinking of Global Climate Change (when was the 'warming' removed?) The result of that and increased representation of the Democrat party assures we will soon see some kind of Carbon Tax in place. Great time to put additional costs on industry and business owners (everyone!), in the midst of the worst recession since Jimmy Carter! We at FAUXRUMORS of course wish the new administration well, and hope they don't implement these fool hearty measures. We also are hoping/praying that there is a colossal blizzard on January 20, 2009 to welcome in the new president. Of course he will only blame the inclement weather on climate change (as everything is) anyway, so why bother?

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Farmer's Almanac Right Wing Rag?

1) The most popular/longest running climatic predictor The Farmers Almanac, which has been predicting the short and long term for North America for going on 192 years appears to be in direct disagreement with the Faux-'consensus of scientists' with its prediction that the US will experience a half century of 'COOLING".
Fans of the Almanac say its famous long-range forecast is accurate between 80 and 85 percent of the time. The predictions are based on a mathematical and astronomical formula that dates back to 1818, and each new edition contains 16 months of weather forecasts for the contiguous United States.

2) Time will only tell but they appear to have a FAR better long term record than the morons who can't predict the path/intensity of a hurricane accurately more than 12 hours out. If the same/similar computers who also can't correctly predict the regular weather more than 2-3 days, how can they predict the climate for decades at a time?? We trust The Farmers Almanac FAR more!

3) No doubt the Global Warming Nazi's will either totally avoid discussing the Almanac';s predictions or dismiss them condescendingly. All the while having a FAR worse record in climate prediction. (Recall the 1970's Global Cooling Alarmists?) If they do mention the Almanac they will probably attribute their findings to 'Ring Wing Extremists who write the publication. To them any one who attends church and doesn't need the government to survive is a 'Right wing zealot!' By the way, in what climate do plants and animals thrive? Warm and wet, or cold and dry?? We say bring on the warmth baby!

Friday, August 1, 2008

CO2 IS Not A Pollutant?

1) Breaking news folks. Apparently the Earth's biosphere (that's stuff that grows) is actually expanding Scientists use the term Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere, the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is apparently booming!! The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

2) In the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did on a daily basis and down to the last kilometer. The results surprised scientists. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

3) Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up. (carbon is the building block of life) and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2:(Bet you didn't see this in the NY Times!) “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century

4) Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we’re rolled off a cliff.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Why We Love Czechs!

1) Is it any more evident that those of us who have been blessed/born into this (relatively) free country take these liberties for granted, while those who have known persecution/totalitarianism embrace/do NOT take them granted. This is the back drop for the latest dust up for the growing movement AGAINST the Global Warming hoax/hysteria.

2) Czech President Vaclav Klaus said recently that he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he discussed his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

3) Klaus, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia. Like the (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

4) Thank you Mr Klaus. Of course Gore will never accept this challenge. As he is too far above the fray to engage this non believer/heretic from such an inconsequential country. Its easier to dismiss him than to try to have an honest debate. Since almost all the 'facts' on Gores side are based upon assumptions/untested/unknowns/junk science he couldn't possibly win a cogent argument from the other side. Ofcourse Klaus is probably being secretly paid off by the evil oil companies, right?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Why We Are Doomed!

1) Our imminent 'doom' has more to do with the current political climate than the actual Earth climate. Our US readers already know their likely presidential successor to GW Bush will be either Barak Husssein Obama/ Hillary Rodham Clinton or John strait-talk McCain. While they may differ ever so slightly over other issues, on the issue of 'climate Change' all 3 are in lock-step.

2) While its probably not a surprise that both Democrat candidates are pro-global warming as they try to keep their environmental wacko base happy, what is different this political season is that the 'Republican' candidate, McCain has a similar view. This sadly means that there will be no presidential candidate this year willing to question the assertion that global warming (a.k.a. “climate change”) is man-made, or the assertion that we can fix global warming by passing a few laws.

3) Like Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal involves a “cap and trade” mechanism to legislatively limit CO2 emissions in the coming years, with the free market minimizing the economic damage by allowing a trading of emission credits between companies. There is amazingly widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth.

4) Sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in any new energy technologies. Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth, which is what a carbon tax would do, is not a very good first step, toward that goal. At some point you would think as we are faced with the stark reality that mankind’s requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence that we would revolt against this kind of nonsense.

5) The bottom line to all of this crap is that despite all the doomsday predictions of how bad things are going to get cllimate-wise, and how we (man kind) is destroying the planet, there has never been a single scientific paper published that has ruled out natural variability for most of the warming (however minimal its been the last 50 years) we’ve seen. So, here we are with bad science ready to support bad policy decisions that will lead to bad economic times ahead. If no one among us is willing to stand up to the scare scientists and their willing accomplices in the media and politicians continue down this path we are indeed doomed!

Thursday, May 1, 2008

News Flash: Oceans Part of The Earth!

1) What we love most about the linked article below is the fact that despite apparent evidence that the oceans are going to cause/are causing the temperatures globally to cool (a tad) the alarm for global warming continues. Where were these scientists who discovered the ocean effects before now? Did they just discover that THREE QUARTERS of the world is covered by water, and this may perhaps play a role in our ever-changing climate?

2) No, the article refuses to budge on the premise that mankind is destroying the planet. This appears to us to be an excuse/a reason to explain why temperatures are NOT/have not risen globally at all in 10 years despite continued increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Comically the article actually states that "Since 1988, CO2 levels in the world's skies have increased by 9.8 percent". OK, shouldn't global temps have markedly increased if CO2 was the cause of any global warming? Well, temps have not gone up (actually fallen) in the past decade and now we're told they may fall further in the next 10 years. If our math is correct, that would mean we'd see a full 20 years of decreasing temperatures?

3) Here's a better explanation. The Earth's climate is constantly in flux. There are variables/factors that scientists have yet to understand/discover. There are so many possible mitigating factors that go into what the global temperatures are, and the climate is, that is total and immense hubris to believe that man kind is having more than a minor (if any significant) effect on the planet. To cause alarm, and to harm people all in the name of this hoax/junk science is the biggest injustice of our time!

Friday, April 25, 2008

Unintended Consequesnces!

1) Below is the link to a recent NY Sun article where a large portion of the recent food shortages are blamed squarely on the bogus 'fight against Global Climate change'. Now, we'll suspend our anger here temporarily over the hubris that humans can 'change the climate', but instead focus on how these environmental wackos and the politicians who are making money(Gore) and attaining power (Gore) are causing a REAL global catastrophe, hunger/famine.

2) So why is this happening? Since the global warming nonsense began to influence political decisions in earnest about 5 or so years ago the governments, especially the US has been investing large sums of money/giving large tax breaks to farmers who grow crops geared towards "Bio fuels". Specifically corn into Ethanol.

  • Not only does Ethanol cost MORE than gasoline to produce, its also vastly less efficient to use (Less mileage per gallon)

  • Its a renewable resource, BUT its a commodity with a variable degree of output: Influenced by annual weather conditions.

  • Instead of the corn going to feed the world its going to refineries to be made into fuel. Spiking up prices and creating shortages

3) With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down. In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol.

4) Its bad enough when the fix is worse than the original problem, however here its even more absurd because there was an unintended problem caused by a fix for a FICTITIOUS/FAUX PROBLEM! We believe this could be just the tip of the iceberg(pun intended). What other 'fixes' for this Faux problem will result in other catastrophes? This is precisely why people like us need to get LOUD and voice our outrage at these new/proposed policies that try to 'save the Planet'.

Monday, March 24, 2008

How Can This Be?

1) The story buried (or probably not mentioned in the liberal (mainstream press) this past week was the amazing discovery that the largest area of the planet, the oceans is NOT warming at all. How can that be? After all isn't the earth supposed to be on a collision course towards destruction (Global warming/climate change) (By the way, when is the climate not changing?) Anyway, the story states that there are 3000 or so mini robots plying the oceans collecting data about ocean temperatures. Up until this point there were very few reliable indicators about this VAST area of the Earth. This by the way is one of the HUGE reasons that many, including us a FAUXRUMORS have been global warming skeptics from the beginning. How can one make hard conclusions without immense amounts of data missing from the equation??

2) They go on to say: 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. Therefore NASA has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. In fact there has been a slight cooling! You can bet your boots that If there was a 'slight warming' that would have been conclusive evidence in favour of global warming. Of course a slight decline must just mean that the data/data collection method is faulty, right?

3) Interestingly Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says. Translation: We don't know shit of what causes changes in temperature and climate. When you folks (scientists) have an actual clue, come back to us (the public) with the complete story so we can then decide for ourselves what IF anything needs to be done. Until that day, shut up and stop with the scare tactics!

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Arctic Sea Ice INCREASES!

1) The latest northern hemispheric sea ice extent and concentration, courtesy of The State of the Canadian Cryosphere. You can animate this image and others here. The recent spell of very cold weather across far northern Canada has expanded sea ice coverage by about 2 million square kilometers compared to the average winter coverage over the past three years, according to a CBC News report. Of course the polar bears probably are wondering what all this frozen water is doing there, right? Weren't they supposed to be soon extinct because there was soon going to be no more polar ice?

2) The key point in this report.....Arctic sea ice is about 10-20 cm thicker in some areas, compared to last year and that is significant, according to Gilles Langis, an Ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service. What type of impact, if any, will this have on the all important summer sea ice coverage in the Arctic? Langis added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007. We can already tell you the impact; It will be larger than last year. Of course this trend will be overlooked as an aberation. When things don't fit into the global warming model, its ignored

3) Of course this result also doesn't jive with reports that CO2 (Yes the gas that we can't live without) is at all time highs. We were also told that Global Warming is exagerated at the poles. Yet in BOTH the north and south poles temperatures have been below normal. We wonder if time magazine will do an alarmist article about this? We're not holding our breath!

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Hold the Presses: Clinton Tells The Truth!

1) Recently in Colorado Bill Clinton made a very truthful statement about the folks who want to fight this bogus 'war on global warming. Said Bill Clinton: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy to Fight Global Warming". Now whenever a Clinton actually tells the truth its a reason to take notice. Most likely his wife won't take too kindly for his moment of candor.

2) In the long, and boring speech, he said what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming was: : "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
"Slow down our economy"? HMMM, that sounds like Bill thinks that few Americans working is the way to combat this issue. How about a world wide depression, now that would really slow down all that dastardly CO2 from evil economic properity!

3) So was this a moment of candor? He then went on to say (back to lying) that the U.S. and "those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan". Confused? There was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Maybe it depends what the definition of "Is", is?
If you want you can see that clip HERE or if you need rest/sleep, you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

4) As we, and most others who see Global Warming as a Fraudulent cause have said: This issue is a not so veiled attempt to reintroduce/strenthen socialism/communism though the guise of 'environentalism. We can now thank Bill Clinton for making that assertion quite clear/illustritive to any on the fence as to the real motivation of this frenzied faux-cause!

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Global COOLING Being Seen/Predicted

1) Above is a link to a Russian story that scientists in that country are seeing a possible shift to a colder climate; That our current period of relative warmth may soon be ending and the writer advises folks to "stock up on fur coats and felt boots". We're fairly certain the writer, Oleg Sorokhtin isn't now, or has been employed by Exxon-Mobile or any Russian Oil conglomerates. His model based on actual science, not the pseudo science of AlGore, states that the 'Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells'.

2) The primary reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation. Or solar activity and luminosity. Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data suggests that the Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

3) "Green house gases" may not be to blame for global warming. There is no scientific evidence that they cause it. The classic greenhouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in the lower layers. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

4) If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it would not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change would be so small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles! Carbon dioxide is NOT bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air. Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.