Thread: Don't get fooled again!!!!

The New York State wind wars Posted by Paul Driessen on Sep 19, 2013

It seems the wind wars are getting nastier with every passing week. Small communities are being targeted by Big Wind developers … and the health, welfare and property values of their citizens are being sacrificed, thanks to an unholy alliance among industrial wind companies, politicians and “mainstream” media – all of whom are profiting handsomely via the Production Tax Credit and other subsidies. Follow Joe For America on Facebook! So says Mary Kay Barton. She should know. She’s living the nightmare of owning a home amid the noise, sprawl and fluttering feathers of bird-killing Big Wind installations … and having her views and concerns ignored by the same local and state media and politicians, who know the true color of “green” energy is green cash. Production tax credit lets Invenergy hide the facts and desecrate rural America by Mary Kay Barton wind warsCongress’s last minute extension of the PTC or Production Tax Credit (aka: “Pork To Cronies”) within the December 31, 2012 fiscal cliff deal was good news for Big Wind corporate welfare profiteers, like Michael Polsky’s Invenergy. It was very bad news for rural/residential towns that are being targeted by industrial wind developers here in New York State, and across the nation. Even though the Wyoming County, NY Town of Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board approved Invenergy’s “Stony Creek” project in the Fall of 2012, Invenergy admitted it would not go ahead with the project unless the PTC was extended. This again highlights the fact that the only thing Invenergy is interested in “harvesting” via its “wind farms” is taxpayers’ money. Even worse, once Crony-Corruptocrats in DC extended the PTC in that midnight fiscal cliff deal, the once-beautiful rolling hills of the Town of Orangeville were doomed. While Mr. Polsky enjoys his new mansion, many Orangeville residents are now helplessly looking on in disgust as Invenergy turns their town into a sprawling industrial wind factory – rendering their homes virtually worthless – thanks to the legalized thievery of their own tax dollars for The Wind Farm Scam. As Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein candidly pointed out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Wind power subsidies? No Thanks” and follow-up TV interview, “Wind farms are increasingly being built in less-windy locations,” because the wind industry is focused on reaping the lucrative taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, rather than providing efficient, affordable, reliable electricity. Nowhere is this proving to be more true than right here in New York State. Orangeville borders the Town of Attica here in the western part of the state. It’s a town that “First Wind LLC” pulled out of a number of years ago, after admitting that the Attica area “was not a good wind area.” It seems Jenevein knew exactly what he was talking about. According to NYISO’s Goldbook, New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% actual capacity factor in 2012. New York State wind factories are not generating enough electricity even to pay for themselves over their short life spans. It’s Economics 101, but it’s being ignored by politicians. Renowned energy analyst Glenn Schleede examined the data on New York State’s wind factories and found that one 450-MW combined cycle generating unit near New York City (where the juice is actually needed) would provide more power than all of New York State’s wind farms combined, at one-fourth the capital costs – and would significantly reduce CO2 emissions, while creating far more jobs than all those wind farms … without the added costs and impacts of all the transmission lines to New York City. It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States: 17.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average! New York residents using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more per year for their electricity than if the state’s electricity prices were at the national average. Despite making absolutely no economic sense, and despite the utter civil discord embroiling Towns across New York State for more than a decade, New York State continues to aggressively pursue further industrial wind development – with no effort whatsoever to protect the health, well-being or pocketbooks of New York State citizens, especially those living next to or under the wind turbines. During his tenure as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo did nothing to protect New York State citizens from the predatory practices and collusion evident among Big Wind developers. Once he became Governor of New York, Cuomo actively began aiding and abetting Big Wind’s efforts to trample rural communities’ Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY Act.” Cuomo’s new Article X put in place an ”Energy Siting Board” comprised of five Albany bureaucrats who now have the final say regarding the siting of “power-generating facilities” in NY – redefined to mean anything generating 25 MW or more. Cuomo’s intention to clear the way for Big Wind developers could not have been any more obvious had he rolled out a red carpet. Article X proceedings are already being pursued by British Petroleum (BP) in Cape Vincent, NY, and by Iberdrola in Clayton, NY. BP intends to turn our beautiful Thousands Islands, St. Lawrence Seaway area into sprawling industrial wind factories. Devastating some of the most scenic, historic areas in the nation in pursuit of the “green” energy boondoggle should have all Americans incensed – especially since they are paying for it! For our communities, scenery and wildlife, Cuomo’s article is Triple X rated! In Lichtfield, NY, another Big Wind LLC tried to override the town’s restrictive zoning laws, by using Cuomo’s “Article X,” so that they could install 490-foot-tall turbines. Luckily for Litchfield residents, the FAA struck down Big Wind’s plans there. Robert Bryce, Senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, reported on the lawsuit going on in Herkimer County, NY due to the intolerable noise problems associated with industrial wind factories. His article title sums it up: “Backlash against Big Wind continues.” Other wind factories are in the works in New York, with unsuspecting towns yet to recognize the fate that awaits them. Considering the growing list of problems associated with industrial wind factories in New York State (and worldwide), Governor Cuomo’s actions reflect criminal negligence by a duly-elected “public servant,” as he has not demanded health studies to safeguard those he was elected to serve and protect. Adding insult to injury, Ben Hoen and his pals at the NRLB just came out with yet another bogus “report,” claiming industrial wind factories do not hurt property values. They can’t really be serious, can they? It’s Real Estate 101: “Location, location, location!” Any realtor who is not in bed with the wind industry will tell you, Location is the most important factor when considering a home’s worth and value. If you industrialize a neighborhood with monstrous, noisy, flickering, bird-killing turbines (and in the case of industrial wind energy, entire towns, and those neighboring them), you are going to devalue it. Pretty much a no-brainer, right? Not according to Hoen and his pals in the ideologically-driven media. After nearly a decade of researching and writing about industrial wind power, I’ve lost count of how many times my comments responding to wind-promoting articles have been rejected, and how many news publications refuse to report all relevant information regarding industrial wind power. A number of local newspapers serving our area here in Western New York State – which has been targeted by industrial wind developers – have literally cut off all letters to the editor from local citizens regarding the industrial wind issue. These same newspapers continue to publish “Press Releases” on behalf of wind developers, and yet refuse to do any responsible, investigative journalism on the efficacy, effects and economics of wind power. The pro-wind media obviously control the message. If “news”papers wonder why their circulation continues to drop, as people choose to get honest news elsewhere, they need look no further than their own refusal to adhere to “The Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics,” which says “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” If wind enthusiasts actually believe all they claim to about the supposed “wonders of wind,” then why do they need to seize power and control the message the way they do? The answer is evident. Either they are so ideologically driven that facts are not “relevant” to them – or they are getting so rich via the wind scam that they must squelch factual information as much as possible, so that the “Emperor with No Clothes” doesn’t end up being exposed for what he is – a charlatan who is swindling taxpayers and ratepayers out of billions of dollars in the name of being “green.” ______________ Mary Kay Barton is a life-long New York State resident, small business owner, retired health educator, and tireless advocate for scientifically sound, affordable and reliable electricity for all Americans. She has served over the past decade in local water quality organizations and enjoys gardening and birding in her National Wildlife Federation-certified “Backyard Wildlife Habitat.” Her most recent experience of “green” ideologues controlling the message is documented in more detail in the longer version of this article at:


http://www.masterresource.org/2013/0...ork-wind-wars/.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/09/new...SHTPMhGPLE3.99


Crap and traitor!! Can you hear me now!!

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated
  

By David Rose



PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 14 September 2013 | UPDATED: 10:00 EST, 19 September 2013




The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years


A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.


One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.
Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.
It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.
Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.


More...

• Taxpayer pays for £100,000 showers for sweaty ministers and staff to freshen up after cycling to work at the Department of Energy and Climate Change
• Britain's great climate change divide: Winters in the North are becoming warmer - while in the South it's summers that are getting hotter
• Did climate change drive the woolly mammoth to extinction? Genetic tests reveal species declined as weather warmed

She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.
For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'



Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.
Prof Curry said she hoped that the ‘inconsistencies will be pointed out’ at the meeting, adding: ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’ Others agree that the unwieldy and expensive IPCC assessment process has now run its course.
Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.’
Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.
As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers .  .  . to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.
The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.
As a result of the warming pause, several recent peer-reviewed scientific studies have suggested that the true figure for the sensitivity is much lower than anyone – the IPCC included – previously thought: probably less than 2C.
Last night IPCC communications chief Jonathan Lynn refused to comment, saying the leaked report was ‘still a work in progress’.

MET OFFICE'S COMPUTER 'FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED' SAYS NEW ANALYSIS


The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher.
Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America.
The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research.
Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.
Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.
He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.
This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.
Mr Lewis concludes that the Met Office modelling is ‘fundamentally unsatisfactory, because it effectively rules out from the start the possibility that both aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity are modest’. Yet this, he writes, ‘is the combination that recent observations support’.
The Met Office said it would examine the paper and respond in due course.




‘Children of MoS reporter should murder him’: vile abuse on Guardian site



The Mail on Sunday’s report last week that Arctic ice has had a massive rebound this year from its 2012 record low was followed up around the world – and recorded 174,200 Facebook ‘shares’, by some distance a record for an article on the MailOnline website.
But the article and its author also became the object of extraordinarily vitriolic attacks from climate commentators who refuse to accept any evidence that may unsettle their view of the science.

A Guardian website article claimed our report was ‘delusional’ because it ignored what it called an ‘Arctic death spiral’ caused by global warming.
Beneath this, some readers who made comments had their posts removed by the site moderator, because they ‘didn’t abide by our community standards’.

But among those that still remain on the site is one which likens the work of David Rose – who is Jewish – to Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitic rant Mein Kampf.
Another suggests it would be reasonable if he were to be murdered by his own children. A comment under the name DavidFTA read: ‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for parricide [killing one’s own father], so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial.’

Critics of the article entirely ignored its equally accurate statement that there is mounting evidence the Arctic sea ice retreat has in the past been cyclical: there were huge melts in the 1920s, followed by later advances.

David Rose¿s article in the Mail on Sunday last week attracted world wide interest


Some scientists believe that this may happen again, and may already be under way – delaying the date when the ice cap might vanish by decades or even centuries.

Another assault was mounted by Bob Ward, spokesman for the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
Mr Ward tweeted that the article was ‘error-strewn’.
The eminent US expert Professor Judith Curry, who unlike Mr Ward is a climate scientist with a long list of peer-reviewed publications to her name, disagreed.
On her blog Climate Etc she defended The Mail on Sunday, saying the article contained ‘good material’, and issued a tweet which challenged Mr Ward to say what these ‘errors’ were.
He has yet to reply.
'A REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE FROM NEW STUDIES'... THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY



Power house: The IPCC'S Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland


What they say: ‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years [at 0.05C per decade] is smaller than the trend since 1951.'

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world had warmed at a rate of 0.2C per decade 1990-2005, and that this would continue for the following 20 years.

The unexpected 'pause' means that at just 0.05C per decade, the rate 1998-2012 is less than half the long-term trend since 1951, 0.12C per decade, and just a quarter of the 2007-2027 prediction.

Some scientists - such as Oxford's Myles Allen - argue that it is misleading to focus on this 'linear trend', and that one should only compare averages taken from decade-long blocks.

What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.
What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’
What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.
What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’
What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.
What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.

What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’
What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.




Clarification
An original version of this article sought to make the fairest updated comparison with the 0.2C warming rate stated by the IPCC in 2007.
It drew on the following sentence in the draft 2013 summary: ‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years… of 0.05C per decade is smaller than the trend since 1951, 0.12C per decade.’ This would represent a reduction in the rate of warming by a little under one half.
But critics argued that the 0.2C warming rate in the 2007 report relates only to the previous 15 years whereas the 0.12C figure in the forthcoming report relates to the half-century since 1951. They pointed out that the equivalent figure in the 2007 report was 0.13C.
This amended article compares the 0.05C per decade observed in the past 15 years with the 0.2C per decade observed in the period 1990-2005 and with the prediction that this rate per decade would continue for a further 20 years.
A sentence saying that the IPCC now projects warming by 2035 to be between 0.4 and 1.0C, which was reproduced accurately from the leaked document, has been deleted, following representations that these figures were an IPCC typographic error.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2fMoqBGDX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

UN: Greenland Ice Melting Six Times Faster Than Previous Decades


Environmental expert Subhankar Banerjee breaks down the latest UN climate change report - September 27, 2013

Bio

Subhankar Banerjee is an environmental humanities scholar and activist. Over the past thirteen years he has worked tirelessly for the conservation of ecoculturally significant areas of the Arctic, and to raise awareness about indigenous human rights and climate change. He has also been focusing on climate change impacts in the desert southwest. He founded ClimateStoryTellers.org, and is editor of the anthology Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point which will be published in paperback on October 8, 2013 (Seven Stories Press). He was recently Director’s Visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Fordham University in New York, received Distinguished Alumnus Award from the New Mexico State University, and Cultural Freedom Award from Lannan Foundation.

Transcript

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore. In a new report just released on Friday, UN-backed climate change scientists have declared with 95 percent certainty that climate change is indeed man-made. The environmental panel on climate change has also called for a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, but say even with those limits, warming will likely continue for centuries. Meanwhile, climate skeptics have rolled out their own campaign to challenge these dire findings. Now joining us to discuss this report is Shubhankar Banerjee. He's an environmental humanities scholar and activist. He founded ClimateStorytellers.org and is editor of the upcoming anthology Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point, which will be out in October. Thank you so much for joining us, Subhankar.SUBHANKAR BANERJEE, ENVIRONMENTAL HUMANITIES SCHOLAR AND ACTIVIST: Thank you, Jaisal, for having me. It's a pleasure.NOOR: So, Subhankar, can you just lay out the most important findings of this report?BANERJEE: Absolutely. What has been released, the viewers should understand, and what's coming within the next year that IPCC will release, it's actually a sequence of reports. And I'll lay it out: it's the most important report ever on human history. And the reason I say that this report--and viewers should understand that, that this report was prepared by world's scientific--most prominent scientists around the world who are working on climate issues. More than 1,000 scientists from 55 countries have contributed to it, with 55,000 comments. And they have looked at more than 9,000 scientific literature. Mostly two-thirds of it has been published in the last--since 2007. So it has been really vetted. And that is the science side. Then there is the policy side that needs to understand this is not just a scientific report, because all 190 countries had to sign off, their representatives had to sign off on this report. So having said that, what has just been released is the first part of a multipart report. And this one looks at what is called the physical science basis, meaning based on paleoclimate data, what happened long back in the history, and current observations, direct observations, as well as modeling and future modeling. That's what this report does. And what the report--this particular report is doing is it looks at the physical science aspect, meaning that the first question is: is global warming happening? And they say unequivocally (their word) global warming is happening. The second big point--and those are the issues--the reason I bring up: because those are the issues climate skeptics or climate deniers would try to challenge. So global warming is happening. That's unequivocal. Second thing is that is it man-made. And as you said, with 95 percent certainty they say it is--humans are causing it. And this [incompr.] number is very important, because in 2007 they said at least 90 percent. Now they're saying at least 95 percent. So if world scientific body is saying 95 percent probability that this is man-made, we should take this more seriously. So the findings, the next thing is that what are the findings. The findings are that the world is warming and it's warming fairly rapidly. The greenhouse gas concentration (their word) is going up at an unprecedented level. The ice sheet in Greenland is melting at an unprecedented rate in this, the first decade of this century. It has melted at a rate six times more than the prior decade. The sea ice of the Arctic is melting at an unprecedented rate and in a downward decline, and so is the Antarctic ice. Then the oceans are the most important. Ninety percent of this energy has been taken up by the oceans, which is then making the oceans acidic. And they also point out that the glaciers are melting, which will have very significant impact. So these are kind of what is happening.The next report, which will come out potentially in March, looks like, will look at the impact of what does all this mean and how is it going to affect all aspects with the droughts and floods and fires and what have you will be looked at in the next report. And then the third report will be on mitigation, what can we do about it.NOOR: So, briefly, climate change skeptics have launched a new campaign, launched op-eds, billboards challenging this new report, and they claim that the UN and these scientists do not have the science to back their claims, and they are just continuing to deny that this is man-made. They say this is a natural phenomenon, among other arguments. Briefly, what's your response?BANERJEE: These are nothing but criminals, pure and simple. And what's going on is that a few years ago to challenge these deniers you had to work a little bit hard. Now it is very serious to put them down, whatever arguments they are making, because what essentially they're making people to understand is that what we need to look at is the long-term trend. So what they do, they go into--when there is a local minima, meaning something just happened in a year or two, something went down a little bit, they look at that and raise hell about it. So the two things that they're challenging right now is that in the last decade, the rate of warming apparently is less than the previous, the prior decade. And that's nonsense, because the way to look at it is let's say you're building a house, and for whatever reason from the first floor, the second floor--you are a creative artist--few of those steps you make it slightly at a decline, slightly looking downward. So these climate skeptics hover like bats on those declining steps and look at it and say, look, it's not global warming. Global warming stopped. It's cooling. These are climate zombies. So what we need to look at is the long-term trend. And all of the long-term trend completely--it'll be very easy to put these deniers down this time around, because there is enormous scientific evidence now that any of their arguments--and in my current article, actually, I have completely disproved their arguments about the Arctic sea ice, because the scientific evidence is very overwhelming right now.NOOR: Subhankar Banerjee, we're going to continue this conversation in part two. Thank you so much for joining us in part one.BANERJEE: Thank you, Jaisal.NOOR: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...&jumival=10798



Bull crap pass the mustard here comes the baloney!!!!! All they want is a worldwide global tax in the name of global warming!!! Another puppet working for the criminal scam artist element in our society!

CNSNews.com


Raise your hand if you're NOT surprised that many Americans still don't buy into Al Gore's global warming hysteria.

Read More: http://goo.gl/SVYS8R






CRAP AND TRAITOR!!!!!

ObamaCare Meltdown Is Just Another Distraction

By Wes Walker / 30 October 2013







Is everybody enjoying the ObamaCare meltdown?

It looks a little like those amateur street magicians. Everybody look over here ..!

Are you looking over there, or are you still aware of other things that are going on? If you’re still looking around, you’ve probably noticed that nobody has done anything about illegal immigration yet. Well, nothing other than releasing some scumbags who’ve got no business walking the same streets as the unsuspecting citizens they’ve victimized.

The government shutdown was big news, and ObamaCare is big news.

I guess stories like this are such big news that there’s no time to cover other stories…

Like this little gem pointing out that the 20+ Billion your government is spending on Climate Change per year has outpaced homeland security by a margin of nearly two-to-one.

That’s right… although 20+ Billion (with a “B”) per annum is being spent on Global Warming, only $12 Billion is spent on customs and border enforcement.

I suppose now that Obama has won his peace prize, and has done his level best to diminish America internationally from the “Great Satan” to a servile dog begging for scraps, there’s nobody left who means America harm. Right?
Dry Runs

Bomb-makers boarding US-bound flights?

Pshaw. The REAL threat is Man-made Global Warming.

Right?


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/obamac...V6z82W6MrFJ.99

Here is what mostly affects our warming and cooling--

Information on solar activity, solar cycles, and what's up with the Sun now from The Old Farmer's Almanac





Here at the Almanac, we believe that solar science, the study of sunspots and other solar activity, can influence weather here on Earth. In this article, we explain the basics of solar activity, solar cycles, and what's up with the Sun now.

Fairly simple explanation of Solar Activity, Solar Cycle Predictions, and Sunspots -- http://www.almanac.com/sunspotupdate

Then check this out-- The Next Ice Age - An Introduction to a Possible Shift Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuYTc...ature=youtu.be

This thread is better suited for Other Topics than General Discussion since it doesn't relate to illegal immigration so it has been moved.