The Pronk Pops Show 551, October 12, 2015, Story 1: President Obama Stalls Islamic State While He Runs Out The Clock On His Failed Presidency — Who is next? President Trump — Obama A Real Loser — Leading On Climate Change — Give Me A Break! — Videos
60 Minutes in 60 Seconds (Day 36)
Obama talks Russia’s escalation in Syria on “60 Minutes”
“60 Minutes” interview: President Obama
Dr David Evans on Global Warming
50 to 1 Project – David Evans Interview
Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq
Emma Sky: “The Unraveling”
Reflections on the Future of War with Gen. Raymond Odierno
Thomas Barnett: Rethinking America’s military strategy
Donald Trump Iran Deal FULL SPEECH, Against Iran Nuclear Agreement at Tea Party Rally Sept. 9, 2015
The Iran Nuclear Deal
Iran and the Bomb
Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case
Climategate: What They Aren’t Telling You!
Krauthammer: ‘Sputtering’ Obama Admin Has No Idea What to Do About Russia, Syria
Donald Trump Fox & Friends RIPS Obama 60 Minute Interview & Biden’s Low Poll Numbers FULL Interview
Donald trump Meet The Press FULL Interview 10/4/2015
60 Minutes Host Destroys Barack Obama On Syria
60 Minutes Host Embarrasses Barack Obama On Syria II
Background Articles and Videos
MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PHILIP STOTT
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Global Warming, Lysenkoism & Eugenics Prof Richard Lindzen
Interview with Professor Richard Lindzen
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)
Global Warming – Michael Crichton
Michael Crichton | States of Fear: Science or Politics?
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6
Global warming and the Carbon Tax Scam
The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
Global Warming: How Hot Air and Bad Science Will Give YOU Staggeringly Higher Taxes and Prices
Sen. Inhofe To Investigate ClimateGate
Lou Dobbs: ‘Who The Hell Does The President Think He Is?’
The Free-Market Case for Green
ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole
James Delingpole: Great Britain, the Green Movement, and the End of the World
George Carlin on Global Warming
Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming
“…Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.
While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure. …”
Steve Kroft: The last time we talked was this time last year, and the situation in Syria and Iraq had begun to worsen vis-Ã -vis ISIS. You had just unveiled a plan to provide air support for troops in Iraq, and also some air strikes in Syria, and the training and equipping of a moderate Syrian force. You said that this would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
President Barack Obama: Over time.
Steve Kroft: Over time. It’s been a year, and–
President Barack Obama: I didn’t say it was going to be done in a year.
Steve Kroft: No. But you said…
President Barack Obama: There’s a question in here somewhere.
…
Steve Kroft: Who’s going to get rid of them?
President Barack Obama: Over time, the community of nations will all get rid of them, and we will be leading getting rid of them. But we are not going to be able to get rid of them unless there is an environment inside of Syria and in portions of Iraq in which local populations, local Sunni populations, are working in a concerted way with us to get rid of them.
On the “moderate opposition” in Syria:
Steve Kroft: You have been talking about the moderate opposition in Syria. It seems very hard to identify. And you talked about the frustrations of trying to find some and train them. You got a half a billion dollars from Congress to train and equip 5,000, and at the end, according to the commander CENTCOM, you got 50 people, most of whom are dead or deserted. He said four or five left?
President Barack Obama: Steve, this is why I’ve been skeptical from the get go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria. My goal has been to try to test the proposition, can we be able to train and equip a moderate opposition that’s willing to fight ISIL? And what we’ve learned is that as long as Assad remains in power, it is very difficult to get those folks to focus their attention on ISIL.
Steve Kroft: If you were skeptical of the program to find and identify, train and equip moderate Syrians, why did you go through the program?
President Barack Obama: Well, because part of what we have to do here, Steve, is to try different things. Because we also have partners on the ground that are invested and interested in seeing some sort of resolution to this problem. And–
Steve Kroft: And they wanted you to do it.
President Barack Obama: Well, no. That’s not what I said. I think it is important for us to make sure that we explore all the various options that are available.
Steve Kroft: I know you don’t want to talk about this.
President Barack Obama: No, I’m happy to talk about it.
Steve Kroft: I want to talk about the– this program, because it would seem to show, I mean, if you expect 5,000 and you get five, it shows that somebody someplace along the line did not– made– you know, some sort of a serious miscalculation.
President Barack Obama: You know, the– the– Steve, let me just say this.
Steve Kroft: It’s an embarrassment.
President Barack Obama: Look, there’s no doubt that it did not work. And, one of the challenges that I’ve had throughout this heartbreaking situation inside of Syria is, is that– you’ll have people insist that, you know, all you have to do is send in a few– you know, truckloads full of arms and people are ready to fight. And then, when you start a train-and-equip program and it doesn’t work, then people say, “Well, why didn’t it work?” Or, “If it had just started three months earlier it would’ve worked.”
Steve Kroft: But you said yourself you never believed in this.
President Barack Obama: Well– but Steve, what I have also said is, is that surprisingly enough it turns out that in a situation that is as volatile and with as many players as there are inside of Syria, there aren’t any silver bullets. And this is precisely why I’ve been very clear that America’s priorities has to be number one, keeping the American people safe. Number two, we are prepared to work both diplomatically and where we can to support moderate opposition that can help convince the Russians and Iranians to put pressure on Assad for a transition. But that what we are not going to do is to try to reinsert ourselves in a military campaign inside of Syria. Let’s take the situation in Afghanistan, which I suspect you’ll ask about. But I wanted to use this as an example.
Steve Kroft: All right. I feel like I’m being filibustered, Mr. President.
President Barack Obama: No, no, no, no, no. Steve, I think if you want to roll back the tape, you’ve been giving me long questions and statements, and now I’m responding to ’em. So let’s– so– if you ask me big, open-ended questions, expect big, open-ended answers. Let’s take the example of Afghanistan. We’ve been there 13 years now close to 13 years. And it’s still hard in Afghanistan. Today, after all the investments we have there, and we still have thousands of troops there. So the notion that after a year in Syria, a country where the existing government hasn’t invited us in, but is actively keeping us out, that somehow we would be able to solve this quickly– is–
Steve Kroft: We didn’t say quickly.
President Barack Obama: –is– is– is an illusion. And– and–
Steve Kroft: Nobody’s expecting that, Mr. President.
President Barack Obama: Well, the– no, I understand, but what I’m– the simple point I’m making, Steve, is that the solution that we’re going to have inside of Syria is ultimately going to depend not on the United States putting in a bunch of troops there, resolving the underlying crisis is going to be something that requires ultimately the key players there to recognize that there has to be a transition to new government. And, in the absence of that, it’s not going to work.
On Russia:
Steve Kroft: One of the key players now is Russia.
President Barack Obama: Yeah.
Steve Kroft: A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it’s also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States– America leads. We’re the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.
President Barack Obama: In what way? Let– let’s think about this– let– let–
Steve Kroft: Well, he’s moved troops into Syria, for one. He’s got people on the ground. Two, the Russians are conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time since World War II–
President Barack Obama: So that’s–
Steve Kroft: –bombing the people– that we are supporting.
President Barack Obama: So that’s leading, Steve? Let me ask you this question. When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin. Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region. And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they’ve had for a long time, Mr. Putin now is devoting his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally. And in Ukraine–
Steve Kroft: He’s challenging your leadership, Mr. President. He’s challenging your leadership–
President Barack Obama: Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.
Steve Kroft: My point is– was not that he was leading, my point is that he was challenging your leadership. And he has very much involved himself in the situation. Can you imagine anything happening in Syria of any significance at all without the Russians now being involved in it and having a part of it?
President Barack Obama: But that was true before. Keep in mind that for the last five years, the Russians have provided arms, provided financing, as have the Iranians, as has Hezbollah.
Steve Kroft: But they haven’t been bombing and they haven’t had troops on the ground–
President Barack Obama: And the fact that they had to do this is not an indication of strength, it’s an indication that their strategy did not work.
Steve Kroft: You don’t think–
President Barack Obama: You don’t think that Mr. Putin would’ve preferred having Mr. Assad be able to solve this problem without him having to send a bunch of pilots and money that they don’t have?
Steve Kroft: Did you know he was going to do all this when you met with him in New York?
President Barack Obama: Well, we had seen– we had pretty good intelligence. We watch–
Steve Kroft: So you knew he was planning to do it.
President Barack Obama: We knew that he was planning to provide the military assistance that Assad was needing because they were nervous about a potential imminent collapse of the regime.
Steve Kroft: You say he’s doing this out of weakness. There is a perception in the Middle East among our adversaries, certainly and even among some of our allies that the United States is in retreat, that we pulled our troops out of Iraq and ISIS has moved in and taken over much of that territory. The situation in Afghanistan is very precarious and the Taliban is on the march again. And ISIS controls a large part of Syria.
President Barack Obama: I think it’s fair to say, Steve, that if–
Steve Kroft: It’s– they– let me just finish the thought. They say your–
President Barack Obama: You’re–
Steve Kroft: –they say you’re projecting a weakness, not a strength–
President Barack Obama: –you’re saying “they,” but you’re not citing too many folks. But here–
Steve Kroft: No, I’ll cite– I’ll cite if you want me, too.
President Barack Obama: –here– yes. Here–
Steve Kroft: I’d say the Saudis. I’d say the Israelis. I’d say a lot of our friends in the Middle East. I’d say everybody in the Republican party. Well, you want me to keep going?
President Barack Obama: Yeah. The– the– if you are– if you’re citing the Republican party, I think it’s fair to say that there is nothing I’ve done right over the last seven and a half years. And I think that’s right. It– and– I also think what is true is that these are the same folks who were making an argument for us to go into Iraq and who, in some cases, still have difficulty acknowledging that it was a mistake. And Steve, I guarantee you that there are factions inside of the Middle East, and I guess factions inside the Republican party who think that we should send endless numbers of troops into the Middle East, that the only measure of strength is us sending back several hundred thousand troops, that we are going to impose a peace, police the region, and– that the fact that we might have more deaths of U.S. troops, thousands of troops killed, thousands of troops injured, spend another trillion dollars, they would have no problem with that. There are people who would like to see us do that. And unless we do that, they’ll suggest we’re in retreat.
Steve Kroft: They’ll say you’re throwing in the towel–
President Barack Obama: No. Steve, we have an enormous presence in the Middle East. We have bases and we have aircraft carriers. And our pilots are flying through those skies. And we are currently supporting Iraq as it tries to continue to build up its forces. But the problem that I think a lot of these critics never answered is what’s in the interest of the United States of America and at what point do we say that, “Here are the things we can do well to protect America. But here are the things that we also have to do in order to make sure that America leads and America is strong and stays number one.” And if in fact the only measure is for us to send another 100,000 or 200,000 troops into Syria or back into Iraq, or perhaps into Libya, or perhaps into Yemen, and our goal somehow is that we are now going to be, not just the police, but the governors of this region. That would be a bad strategy Steve. And I think that if we make that mistake again, then shame on us.
Steve Kroft: Do you think the world’s a safer place?
President Barack Obama: America is a safer place. I think that there are places, obviously, like Syria that are not safer than when I came into office. But, in terms of us protecting ourselves against terrorism, in terms of us making sure that we are strengthening our alliances, in terms of our reputation around the world, absolutely we’re stronger.
On Friday, the Pentagon ended the program to train-and-equip Syrian rebels that the president told us did not work. In a moment, he talks about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton’s emails and Joe Biden’s possible run for president.
Steve Kroft: OK. Mr. President, there are a lot of serious problems with the world right now, but I want to ask you a few questions about politics.
President Barack Obama: Yeah, go ahead.
Steve Kroft: What do you think of Donald Trump?
President Barack Obama: Well, I think that he is a great publicity-seeker and at a time when the Republican party hasn’t really figured out what it’s for, as opposed to what it’s against. I think that he is tapped into something that exists in the Republican party that’s real. I think there is genuine anti-immigrant sentiment in the large portion of at least Republican primary voters. I don’t think it’s uniform. He knows how to get attention. He is, you know, the classic reality TV character and, at this early stage, it’s not surprising that he’s gotten a lot of attention.
Steve Kroft: You think he’s running out of steam? I mean, you think he’s going to disappear?
President Barack Obama: You know, I’ll leave it up to the pundits to make that determination. I don’t think he’ll end up being president of the United States.
Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server–
President Barack Obama: No.
Steve Kroft: –while she was Secretary of State?
President Barack Obama: No.
Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?
President Barack Obama: I don’t think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged and– you know, as a general proposition, when we’re in these offices, we have to be more sensitive and stay as far away from the line as possible when it comes to how we handle information, how we handle our own personal data. And, you know, she made a mistake. She has acknowledged it. I do think that the way it’s been ginned-up is in part because of– in part– because of politics. And I think she’d be the first to acknowledge that maybe she could have handled the original decision better and the disclosures more quickly. But–
Steve Kroft: What was your reaction when you found out about it?
President Barack Obama: This is one of those issues that I think is legitimate, but the fact that for the last three months this is all that’s been spoken about is an indication that we’re in presidential political season.
Steve Kroft: Do you agree with what President Clinton has said and Secretary Clinton has said, that this is not– not that big a deal. Do you agree with that?
President Barack Obama: Well, I’m not going to comment on–
Steve Kroft: You think it’s not that big a deal–
President Barack Obama: What I think is that it is important for her to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the American public. And they can make their own judgment. I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.
Steve Kroft: This administration has prosecuted people for having classified material on their private computers.
President Barack Obama: Well, I– there’s no doubt that there had been breaches, and these are all a matter of degree. We don’t get an impression that here there was purposely efforts– on– in– to hide something or to squirrel away information. But again, I’m gonna leave it to–
Steve Kroft: If she had come to you.
President Barack Obama: I’m going to leave it to Hillary when she has an interview with you to address all these questions.
Steve Kroft: Right now, there’s nobody on either side of the aisle that is exactly running on your record. Do you want Joe Biden to get in the race and do it?
President Barack Obama: You know, I am going to let Joe make that decision. And I mean what I say. I think Joe will go down as one of the finest vice presidents in history, and one of the more consequential. I think he has done great work. I don’t think there’s any politician at a national level that has not thought about being the president. And if you’re sitting right next to the president in every meeting and, you know wrestling with these issues, I’m sure that for him he’s saying to himself, “I could do a really good job.”
Steve Kroft: I do want to talk a little bit about Congress. Are you going to miss John Boehner?
President Barack Obama: John Boehner and I disagreed on just about everything. But the one thing I’ll say about John Boehner is he did care about the institution. He recognized that nobody gets 100 percent in our democracy. I won’t say that he and I were ideal partners, but he and I could talk and we could get some things done. And so I am a little concerned that the reason he left was because there are a group of members of Congress who think having somebody who is willing to shut down the government or default on the U.S. debt is going to allow them to get their way 100 percent of the time.
Steve Kroft: Do you think you’re going to be able to get anything through Congress?
President Barack Obama: Well, given that– this Congress hasn’t been able to get much done at all over the last year and a half, two years, for that matter for the last four, it would be surprising if we were able to make huge strides on the things that are important. But I have a more modest goal, which is to make sure that Congress doesn’t do damage to the economy.
The president says that means avoiding another budget crisis and another round of threats to shut down the government, which could happen as early as December. Even with congressional Republicans in disarray, he’s hoping to reach a deal with Congress as he did two years ago, to lift some spending caps in defense and other areas while continuing to reduce the deficit.
President Barack Obama: Right now, our economy is much stronger relative to the rest of the world. China, Europe, emerging markets, they’re all having problems. And so, if we provide another shock to the system by shutting down the government, that could mean that the progress we have made starts going backwards instead of forwards. We have to make sure that we pass a transportation bill. It may not be everything that I want. We should be being much more aggressive in rebuilding America right now. Interest rates are low, construction workers need the work, and our economy would benefit from it. But if we can’t do a big multiyear plan, we have to at least do something that is robust enough– so that we are meeting the demands of a growing economy.
Steve Kroft: A few months back, at a fundraiser, you made a point of saying that the first lady was very pleased that you can’t run again.
President Barack Obama: Yeah, she is.
Steve Kroft: Do you feel the same way?
President Barack Obama: You know, it’s interesting. I– you go into your last year and I think it’s bittersweet. On the one hand, I am very proud of what we’ve accomplished and it makes me think, I’d love to do some more. But by the time I’m finished, I think it will be time for me to go. Because there’s a reason why we considered George Washington one of our greatest presidents. He set a precedent, saying that when you occupy this seat, it is an extraordinary privilege, but the way our democracy is designed, no one person is indispensable. And ultimately you are a citizen. And once you finish with your service, you go back to being a citizen. And I– and I think that– I think having a fresh set of legs in this seat, I think having a fresh perspective, new personnel and new ideas and a new conversation with the American people about issues that may be different a year from now than they were when I started eight years ago, I think that’s all good for our democracy. I think it’s healthy.
Steve Kroft: Do you think if you ran again, could run again, and did run again, you would be elected?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
~ H.L. Mencken
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
An “over-representation” is a lie. Lawyers call it a material misrepresentation.
Al Gore’s biggest whopper or lie in An Inconvenient Truth, both the film and book, is the 20 feet sea level rise by 2100.
This is in sharp contrast to the 2 feet maximum prediction of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Both Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 on October 12, 2007.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report of February 2007 projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) by 2100 with temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).
“Considering all of these influences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2 to 23.6 inches (18-59 cm or 0.18- 0.59m) by 2100 (see Figure 1) relative to 1980-1999 under a range of scenarios.
Sea Level Rise Projections to 2100
Past and projected global average sea level. The gray shaded area shows the estimates of sea level change from 1800 to 1870 when measurements are not available. The red line is a reconstruction of sea level change measured by tide gauges with the surrounding shaded area depicting the uncertainty. The green line shows sea level change as measured by satellite. The purple shaded area represents the range of model projections for a medium growth emissions scenario (IPCC SRES A1B). For reference 100mm is about 4 inches. Source: IPCC (2007)
Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003. The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century.”
“…17. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.
Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.
It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years. …”
Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. …”
UK Gov’t Helps Teachers Deal With Gore’s Climate Errors
political issues)
No wonder a judge in the United Kingdom found nine errors including Al Gore’s big whopper in his ruling on An Inconveniet Truth:
“…The High Court has indicated that schools can lawfully show AIT to pupils without breaching ss. 406 or 407 of the Education Act 1996, but that, in doing so they must bear in mind the following points: AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about those views; • in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore.s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; • where the film suggests that viewers should take particular action at thepolitical level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view. …”
• teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote
Al Gore has at least been consistent on warning about global warming for twenty years. He also has a propensity to quote Winston Churchill.
Here is one quotation from Winston Churchill that he appears to have overlooked.
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
~Winston Churchill
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was best described by Paul Johnson, British author and historian, and Presidential Medal of Freedom award recipient:
“Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honourable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”
Looks like John Stossel is going to rain on Al Gore’s Nobel Prize parade/panic attack for a global warming planetary emergency.
Watch the 20/20 show Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8 P.M. Eastern time on ABC.
John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths
“…In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:
“This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It’s as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
“The Vice President’s much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.
“They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”
Gore’s film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel. …”
….
“…I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
“It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering – schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts.”’
“He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
“…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.
The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. …”
“Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100. He shows computer animated maps in which most of southern Florida, southern Manhattan, Shanghai, and Bangladesh are inundated. “Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees, and then imagine 100 million,” says Gore. Of course his reference to the couple of hundred thousand refugees aims to evoke thoughts about the horrific experience of New Orleanians last year.
Well, the “consensus” of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don’t have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once, though it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea level in mind. …”
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Global cooling not warming
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
Global Warming Hoax
Another Global Warming Hoax exposed
James Hansen concerned IPCC ignores danger of ice sheet melt
NASA’s Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity
“…Dr. Hansen is a math modeler in the climate change game. How does he get Planetary Doom from a math model? It’s very simple. You build in “positive feedback loops.” That is, you look in the vast toolbox of climate variables to find just two factors that might reinforce each other in a catastrophic loop. For instance, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might create a greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, which causes more water evaporation, which causes more greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, etc., etc. Keep looping that, and you raise world temps by just one degree Centigrade, so the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise, up to 25 meters. See? It’s easy.
The big problem with this scenario is that the climate system almost certainly has negative feedback loops, i.e., causal connections that work to bring temperatures back to a rough baseline. The climate is likely to have self-regulation mechanisms in much the way that our bodies have self-regulating loops to stabilize our temperature, blood sugar, and a hundred other variables. Why does that seem likely? Because the world hasn’t burned up or drowned in quite a long time, even though temperature variations and greenhouse gases have existed for many millions of years. Such factors as clouds and air particulates are believed to lower temperatures. With a little imagination we could easily build math models for self-regulating loops that would tend to stabilize temperatures. (But it might be hard to swing the federal grant support for those models.) …”
Statement: Thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Demands Improved Monitoring to Reduce Uncertainty over Potential Sea-Level Rise
The consensus view of the workshop:
Satellite observations show that both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last decades.
Ongoing thinning in the grounded ice sheet is already contributing to sea-level rise.
The thinning of the ice has occurred because melting beneath the ice shelves has increased, reducing the friction holding back the grounded ice sheet and causing faster flow.
Oceanic changes have caused the increased ice-shelf melting. The observed average warming of the global ocean has not yet notably affected the waters reaching the base of the ice shelves. However, recent changes in winds around Antarctica caused by human influence and/or natural variability may be changing ocean currents, moving warmer waters under the ice shelves.
Our understanding of ice-sheet flow suggests the possibility that too much melting beneath ice shelves will lead to “runaway” thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current understanding is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might happen, but discussions at the meeting included the possibility of several feet of sea-level rise over a few centuries from changes in this region.
The experts agreed that to reduce the very large uncertainties concerning the behavior of the Antarctic ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment will require new satellite, ground, and ship-based observations coupled to improved models of the ice-ocean-atmosphere system. Issues include:
The recent changes were discovered by satellite observations; however, continued monitoring of some of these changes is not possible because of a loss of capability in current and funded satellite missions.
The remoteness of this part of Antarctica from existing stations continues to limit the availability of ground observations essential to predicting the future of the ice sheet.
No oceanographic observations exist beneath the ice shelves, and other oceanographic sampling is too infrequent and sparse to constrain critical processes.
Current continental-scale ice sheet models are inadequate for predicting future sea level rise because they omit important physical processes.
Current global climate models do not provide information essential for predicting ice sheet and oceanic changes in the Amundsen Sea Embayment; for example, ice shelves are not included.
Resolving these issues will substantially improve our ability to predict the future sea level contribution from the Amundsen Sea Embayment of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html
Changes in Sea-Level associated with Modifications of the Mass Balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets over the 21st Century
“Abstract
Changes in runoff from Greenland and Antarctica are often cited as one of the major concerns linked to anthropogenic changes in climate. The changes in mass balance, and associated changes in sea-level, of these two ice sheets are examined by comparing the predictions of the six possible combinations of two climate models and three methods for estimating melting and runoff. All models are solved on 20 and 40 km grids respectively for Greenland and Antarctica. The two temperature based runoff parameterizations give adequate results for Greenland, less so for Antarctica. The energy balance based approach, which relies on an explicit modelling of the temperature and density structure within the snow cover, gives similar results when coupled to either climate model. The Greenland ice sheet, for a reference climate scenario similar to the IPCC’s IS92a, is not expected to contribute significantly to changes in the level of the ocean over the 21st century. The changes in mass balance in Antarctica are dominated by the increase in snowfall, leading to a decrease in sea-level of 4 cm by 2100. The range of uncertainty in these predictions is estimated by repeating the calculation with the simpler climate model for seven climate change scenarios. Greenland would increase the level of the oceans by 0 – 2 cm, while Antarctica would decrease it by 2.5 – 6.5 cm. The combined effect of both ice sheets lowers the sea-level by 2.5 – 4.5 cm over the next 100 years, this represents a 25% reduction of the sea-level rise estimated from thermal expansion alone. This surprisingly small range of uncertainty is due to cancellations between the effects of the two ice sheets. For the same reason, the imposition of the Kyoto Protocol has no impact on the prediction of sea-level change due to changes in Greenland and Antarctica, when compared to a reference scenario in which emissions are allowed to grow unconstrained. …”
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*
After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellitemeasurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’sice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen,so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Althoughthe balance between these opposing processes has varied considerablyon a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenlandare each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combinedimbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raisesea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modestcontribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimetersper year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenlandis the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streamsand glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. Inboth continents, there are suspected triggers for the acceleratedice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and,over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidlycounteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climatemodels.
1 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK. 2 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK
“Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007. ”
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal OpinionA critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007
“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it. …”
So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”
Richard Lindzen at International Conference on Climate Change
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)
Why Climate Models Are Wrong
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Why the IPCC models are wrong – Part 1
Why the IPCC models are wrong – Part 2
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Apocalypse? No! – Why there is no Global Warming Crisis
The Media & the global warming Hype – John Stossell
Don’t Panic – Flaws In Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts
Great five part series of videos on climate change by scientists actually doing research on the subject:
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 1/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 2/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 3/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 4/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 5/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 6/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 7/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 8/9)
Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1
Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 2
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4
Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 1 of 5
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 1 of 3
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 2 of 3
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 3 of 3
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
(2 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: BJORN LOMBORG
(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 1
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 2
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 3
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 4
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 5
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 6
NASA | Taking Earth’s Temperature
Global Warming – what do the numbers show.
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 1/3
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 2/3
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 3/3
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 1/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 2/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 3/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 4/4
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt3
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt4
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt5
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt7
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt8
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt9
Global Warming: An Unsettled Science
Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Al Gore Snowjob
Another Global Warming Hoax exposed
“A prominent scientist who’s followed the science of global warming from the beginning, Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are. He suggests that the relatively simple solution of land use management could potentially give us the ability to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any level we’d like, and there’s no need to stop burning coal and oil.”Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of 2 Bogus Climate Models
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1 of 2 Bogus Climate Models
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2 of 2 Stratospheric Cooling
Freeman John Dyson”…The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate….”[14]
4 cm by 2100. The range of uncertainty in these predictions is estimated by repeating the calculation with the simpler climate model for seven climate change scenarios. Greenland would increase the level of the oceans by 0 – 2 cm, while Antarctica would decrease it by 2.5 – 6.5 cm. The combined effect of both ice sheets lowers the sea-level by 2.5 – 4.5 cm over the next 100 years, this represents a 
Pronk Palisades 
You must be logged in to post a comment.