Public confidence in scientific “consensus” regarding the theory of manmade climate change is threatening the believing scientists’ confidence. While polls show that taking action to fight climate change is off the radar of most Americans, the behavior of the theory’s advocates is even more telling. They are behaving like "cornered rats"—taking extreme actions to protect their turf.
 
On February 23, European Union officials are expected to vote on a draft law would assign a higher carbon-emissions value to bitumen-derived fuels, compared to more conventional crudes. The European Commission has proposed a Fuel Quality Directive that, if passed, will exclude fuel derived from Canada’s oil sands from European use. The premise is that the production of the oil in question produces more carbon emissions than conventional oil.
 
While virtually none of the bitumen-derived fuels are currently shipped to Europe, supporters of the manmade climate change viewpoint have been using the pending vote in attempt to get the issue back on the public’s horizon.
 
On February 21, two days before the scheduled vote, a half-page ad was placed in the Financial Times. The ad’s large print states: “Eight Nobel Peace Laureates—including Archbishop Desmond Tutu—want to keep dirty oil out of Europe. Support the European Commission’s Fuel Quality Directive.” The expensive ad then features a letter that the Nobel Laureates sent to “European Heads of State” in which they say, among other things: “Tar sands development is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and threatens the health of the planet. As the tar sands have contributed to rising emissions, Canada recently stepped away from the Kyoto Protocol. Europe must not follow in Canada’s footsteps.” Therein lies the true purpose of the ad.
 
The original letter is on stationary from the “Nobel Women’s Initiative” whose olive-branch logo includes this statement: “advocating for peace, justice, and equality.” The letterhead lists Laureates from many developing and/or under-developed countries. As I have previously posited, the Europeans’ support for the wealth-transferring Kyoto Protocol is that it would “equalize” ener
1
Marita Noon

Marita Noon

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
83 Comments So Far
« Previous1Next »
minky Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 8:48 PM
Steve of CA wrote: "There is great money from the energy industry for scientists to dispute global warming. Why have not more done so?".

You may want to reexamine your logic there, Stevie boy. If the energy industry really was offering vast sums of money to dispute global warming, there would be no shortage of scientists willing to prostitute themselves. As it is, the easy money goes to the climate alarmists (the real prostitutes) who find their research readily accepted, with minimal scrutiny, in the most prestigious journals.

inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 4:45 PM
"If the science on the warmer’s side were solid, they wouldn’t need to resort to underhanded actions. But as more evidence, that began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf."

Bingo.

Those who actually believe that the science supports the claim that man is causing climate change and that we must surrender our prosperity and our liberty in order to save the planet, need to consider this:

(1) If the case were solid, they would not have to be inventing fraudulent data; and
(2) The people making up evidence are the bad guys.
Arley2 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 3:04 PM
The sun drives global warming and cooling.

Having said that, we need to continue to improve "green" alternative energy technology. When well enough developed, such technology will succeed in the market place.

We don't need the federal government messing in the process.
Nick705 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 4:36 PM
No it won't. The current electric cars have a range on battery - you know, those marvellous 21st century advanced batteries - exactly the same as they did 115 years ago on the clunky old lead-acid ones; about 45 miles. And how do you propose to develop battery-driven ships, locomotives and airliners? Green energy is a dream, and a very attractive boondoggle for companies like Solyndra that gave Obummer tens of thousands of $ in return for half a billion in out taxes for a solar panel business that would never work.
Reginald10 Wrote: Feb 24, 2012 3:37 PM
You don't need batteries for locomotives, streetcars, or "trolley buses". These can be run from overhead wires, supplying current directly. (And yes, they did try battery-powered streetcars and locomotives. They didn't work very well.)
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 5:06 PM
"Having said that, we need to continue to improve "green" alternative energy technology.

Um... why, if burning fossil fuels is not dangerous?

"When well enough developed, such technology will succeed in the market place."

I seriously doubt that either wind or solar will ever be developed well enough to succeed without subsidy. Both sources are too diffuse -- there's too little energy per acre, and no way to increase it. These sources are tied to the most limited resource on the planet, namely land.

As for electric cars, I see no reasonable hope for vast improvement in battery technology, and the electric grid would need almost 4X the current capacity to support a full fleet of plug-in cars.
Zdravko Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 2:35 PM
The global warming conspiracy needs to be put in perspective to be properly understood. This far-left attack by government-paid drones started in the 1970's with the global cooling scam: we should disarm our nuclear bombers and fill them with soot to be spread over the poles and so prevent those new glaciers from descending south and crushing the New York skyscrapers to dust. When that did not work the same fakers invented the global warming hoax in the 1990's; we should nationalize all industries and organize a UN-sponsored world socialist government based on “social justice” with the fakers in charge. What with 12 years of substantial cooling the fakers switched to the climate change flimflam in the 2000's; so whatever happens we...
Kenyan_Colonialist Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 2:00 PM
Lets see... it is February 23rd and someone called and told me it is nearly 70 degrees outside in Washington, DC.
True Conservative! Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 2:15 PM
Well, THAT'S proof ... or as you GW fanatics say EVERY time we get a cold day "There's a difference between climate and weather!" ... except when it supports, however poorly, the leftist GW agenda!
Nick705 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 4:38 PM
And eastern Europe is experiencing its coldest, snowiest winter in history, with entire cities snowed in for weeks and upward of 1,000 deaths. The rest of Europe has had a series of record cold winters, with zero F in Scotland for the first time since records began in 1756.
Steve of CA Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 4:44 PM
We are having warmer than normal days here in the SF Bay Area. I am not saying that means global warming is real, on that topic I go by the consensus of climate scientists.
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 5:10 PM
Really? When did it become leftist ideal that intellectual robustness is comprised of following the herd?

Get your head out of the ground, go examine the data yourself, and make up your own mind, you damned sheep. It's not that hard.

And by the way, you're a liar. You're not going by the consensus of climate scientists. You're going by the word of leftist reporters at Huffington Post and the New York Times. You wouldn't know a real climate scientist if one bit your weenis off.
Reginald10 Wrote: Feb 24, 2012 3:39 PM
Yes, and the Danube River is frozen for the first time in decades. Your point?
Alex253 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 1:16 PM
The Nobel P(e)iss Laureates bunch! Throw in Arafat and his ilk, and they should discredit any idea, global warming included.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:50 PM
That Gleick would be promoted to chair an ethics committee, is similar to the oppressors who sit on the UN Human Rights Commission. Those who are the biggest violators, become those who do the opposite of what they purport to support.

The thieves are guarding the bank.
Murderous dictators head the UN human rights commission
Politicians claim they cut spending while spending goes up
War is Peace, and Peace is War

Can they stop lying for power? Perhaps, but they don't want to. And many voters allow it.
Richard141 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:50 PM
You would think that after this year's winter in Europe, they would appreciate a little global warming right about now.
USNbubblehead Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:25 PM
Its a shame, actually, that so many of these scientists decided to take the issue into the political arena, where everything becomes subjective. It may impede funds to study the phenomenon by a more objective scientific community; and we SHOULD study this. We do know that polar ice is diminishing at a steady rate, although there still is ice cover up there, and has been for some time. Our own scientists from the lab I work at have documented as much. The water temperatures, however, seem fairly consistent with observations I made myself the last time I was up there, about 20 years ago.
scott s. Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 3:41 PM
The problem is the science has been co-opted by the IPCC, which is a political process masquerading as a scientific one. Unfortunately many scientists, needing funding and tenure, have little choice but go along to get along.
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 5:22 PM
The polar ice cover is recovering in the north, and has never seriously declined in the south.

But I agree, we should study this.

The push to stop using fossil fuels has been a favored agenda of Democratic party politicians for at least 4 decades. Those of us who care about science knew what the game was when a POLITICIAN announced "The debate is over!" about a climate debate that had not really begun, back in 1992.
Bytheocean Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 6:11 PM
We don't know that ice is diminishing. Sometimes it is decreasing in the antarctic and increasing in the arctic or vice versa. When people quote statistics these days they are often lying or repeating someone else who is lying.The money is into global warming. Working scientists have to pretend to be a believer to hold onto their jobs. Only the old retired scientists can speak the truth. Articles: Himalayan Mountain Tops Not Melting Europe in "Mini Ice Age" Another Enviro Scientist Turns Global Warming Skeptic by John Ransom articles on townhall; High Priests of Eco-Destruction by Malkin on townhall. Happy Reading.
Grant75 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:23 PM
It’s the economy, stupid. Any scientist who tells the EPA that CO2 is a "pollutant" should be brought up on charges. That's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Metaphorically, the lemmings in Washington could stampede our economy right over the cliff in Solyndra-like fashion.

Big-government, power-hungry bureaucrats and politicians love nothing better than an excuse to regulate a ubiquitous substance like CO2 – a by-product of every human activity. Wow! Talk about giving a teenager whiskey and the keys to your Ferrari.
Moonbat Exterminator Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:12 PM
An alternative hypothesis to AGW. It is entirely within the bounds of reason to surmise that the increase in global temperature measurements is not due to a real change in temperature, but by improvements in mesuring instruments and techniques. We have less than 200 years of temperature measurements using thermometers. Early records were imprecise due to primitive technology and distribution of observation stations. Proxy data is suspect due to the number of variables they cannot account for. Satellite data is only available for 30 years or so and while they provide the most accurate and complete picture, they only provide a snapshot. It's like looking at one frame of Citizen Kane and trying to explain the entire movie based on that.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:49 AM
Lon, as usual, appears to be in command of some facts but can't reason his way to the right conclusion. Lon, the problem is that even if we accept all the falsified data and the computer models that ignore basic math like significant digits, and we use the very conclusions that the AGW groups suggest, i.e., that global temperature is going to rise a couple of degrees by the end of this century, the remedies suggested would devastate the world economy hitting developing nations especially hard, divert money from very important work fighting disease, hunger and other priorities, and would change the amount of rise in temperature by only a fraction. In other words, we are being asked to spend a fortune on something that we are being told...
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:50 AM
wouldn't work anyway.
What is your justification for defending this lunacy?

Bill1895 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:32 AM
Lon are you one of those mindless dullards who believe in "man made global warming"?

Thank you for not serivng in the miltiary, you are too stupid to be trusted with a gun!
firetoice Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:15 AM
The agenda of the CAGW movement can be characterized as a “three-legged stool”.
Leg 1: Zero carbon emissions
Leg 2: Global veganism
Leg 3: Population control
Seat: Global governance
The components of the CAGW “stool” are rarely discussed together, for what I believe are fairly obvious reasons.

It is, however, a "stool" which cannot be picked up by its clean end.
Ray from Bloombergia Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 9:28 AM
These dill holes are like the fearful congregants packed into churches on 12/31/999AD. They were determined that the world was going to end because Christ had ascended 1,000 years earlier and they couldn't wrap their limited medieval imaginations on the concept of multi-millenial time frames.

Ray
NRA Life
Soli Deo Gloria!!
Flubadub Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 9:22 AM
More than protecting their investment is to protect the income stream coming to the liars in the global warming hoax. Algore has become a multimillionaire through this ruse as well as many other people. Algores jets and huge homes is the epitamy of hypocrites and he is one of their leaders? If Gore wasn't on the inside he would be a poster child showing the abuses of people causing global warming.
Also big polar bears eat little polar bears and their are plenty of little polar bears in the food chain.
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 8:10 AM
There's a very good reason why nobody is supporting the human caused climate change theory.
The cause and effect relationship doesn't have strong enough proof. And the proposed solutions are all unsatisfactory.
The real fact of the matter is unless we eliminate 80% of the current world's population, we are going to eventually overpower the homeostatic balance and raise the temperature of the planet. Everything we do produces heat, and the higher the technology, the higher the amount of heat produced.
RamonAdams Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 8:33 AM
Dr Zinj
"the higher the technology, the higher the amount of heat produced."

Diesel-electric locomotives produce more heat per ton-mile than the coal-powered steam ones, which produce more heat than wood-powered?
Hand-held computers produce more heat than the desk-sized comptometors of yore?
TVs more than projectors?
Can we get yourstats on the Volt & Prius. I would love to shove that into the greenies' faces.
Ray from Bloombergia Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 9:30 AM
They are WORSE!!!! The Prius and Volt consume MORE energy per ton to build than ANY conventional car. They have a bigger carbon footprint than a Ford F-450 Super Duty with turbo-diesel and dually wheels!!!

Ray
NRA Life
Soli Deo Gloria!!
David207 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:09 AM
And you pulled these "facts" out of a remote opening in your body?
firetoice Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:06 AM
Please note that nobody is openly discussing how they would propose to reduce the global population from the current ~7 billion to the "sustainable" ~1 billion. Ever wonder why? Ponder the possible approaches. Does "free" contraception, sterilization and abortion (per Obama) become mandatory?

"Enquiring minds want to know."
David207 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:27 AM
Probably the best way would be to eliminate politicians, lawyers and everyone else with an IQ less than 99. Plus those who have 10 kids and are on welfare, prison populations, and those with too much time on their hands and have nothing better to do than submit stupid comments.
Fredward Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 6:44 AM
Wow. And I thought this article was about the global warming scam. Anybody ever discuss the actual topic? Now we need an internet shoe commercial or something.
David207 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 11:29 AM
No one cas discuss anything these days without liberals flaming Republicans, conservatives, old folks, religions and anything else they can think of and vice versa for the Republicans.
robertg222 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 6:05 AM
What I want to know is why all the criminals that pushed the climate change scam are not in jail yet. Last time I checked fraud was still a crime.
K.22 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:16 PM
Not if that fraud is in support of politically popular causes. Where have you been for the past few decades?
chronic_relatiivism Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 2:46 AM
The Republican and Democratic Parties have become blinders of the left and the right to trot us like a horse down the path of a Totalitarian worldwide collective; whether we go by inches or by miles, we shall be dragged willingly, or beaten severly into accepting it. http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/g-edward-griffin-interview-the-collectivist-conspiracy-full-length/ttdc2uCUFvRAvJsY7Ea03w
This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied history of the last 140 years. In this world there are players, and payers, we my friends will pay. The elite will play, they merely call the tune, and we start up the band.
K.22 Wrote: Feb 23, 2012 12:20 PM
So we should what, Stop whining and get into line since resistance is futile in the face of historic inevitabliity?

Do you suppose our founders would agree with you? Or take pride, as you seem to, in your rational acceptance of serfdom?
« Previous1Next »