Thursday, November 19, 2009

Global Warming has stopped--'BILLIONS OF EUROS AT STAKE' Der Spiegel


  • The author seems to believe in global warming and is genuinely stumped by reality....unlike Goldman Sachs and the US government who will keep the fraud going.
  • photo above from March 2009, via Tom Nelson

"Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average

  • global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.

Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

  • At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's
  • average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium,
and it
  • even looks
  • as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau.

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue.

  • For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums.

This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public

  • with a sense of shame,
  • thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

  • Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with

its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and

And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced

  • to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Mixed Messages

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

  • The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?

The global temperature-monitoring network

  • consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region
  • with the help of supercomputers.

Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic,

  • where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area.
  • Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole."

The scientists at the Hadley Center simply used the global average value for the hole, ignoring the fact that it has become significantly warmer in the Arctic, says Rahmstorf. But a NASA team from the

  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary,
  • arrives at a flat temperature curve for the last five years that is similar to that of their British colleagues.

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the

  • fuzzy computing done

by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

  • that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line.

In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.

Part 2: The Difficulties of Predicting the Climate

  • Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future.

They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  • However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.

This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate.

Major volcanic eruptions can also curb rising temperatures in the medium term. The eruption of

  • Mount Pinatubo in June 1991, for example, caused world temperatures to drop by an average of 0.5 degrees Celsius, thereby prolonging a cooler climate phase that had begun in the late 1980s.

But the Mount Pinatubo eruption happened too long ago to be related to the current slowdown in global warming. So what is behind this more recent phenomenon?

Weaker Solar Activity

Its radiation activity is currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters,

  • this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of stagnating global warming.

Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere.

  • With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. "We are slowly starting to attempt (such models)," says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

  • If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years." (They don't know. They just worry because they'll be embarrassed).

(continuing) "Betting on Warmer Temperatures

  • The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. "That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt," says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

While climatologists at conferences engage in passionate debates over when temperatures will start rising again,

  • global warming's next steps have also become the subject of
  • betting activity.

Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a €2,500 ($3,700) bet. "I will win," says Rahmstorf.

  • His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. "We are scientists, not poker players.""

'Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan' from Spiegel Online, "Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists baffled by Global Warming Time-out" by Gerald Traufetter, 11/19/09, Der Spiegel




Saturday, October 10, 2009

ABC News says, "Taliban, Al Qaeda Helped by Warming."

Even the BBC (normally on the side of the global hoax) acknowledged recently that the earth has been cooling since 1998. But trillions are riding on this scam (enmeshed in which are Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, the UN and others). *
  • Per Gateway Pundit, ABC News pitches that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are helped by man-induced global warming.
Gateway Pundit: "ABC News reported, via NewsBusters:"
Agriculture in [Afghanistan] is struggling, leaving many young men with
  • no money or work...
“There are a lot more people… who are unemployed with nothing to do, and so the
  • Taliban basically seems an attractive thing for them to join,” says [some journalist/government employee]..."
Click Photo for the Video


First, global warming doesn't exist despite billions being made off the idea in carbon offsets scams. Second, there are many well educated, middle class terrorists (see 9-11 terrorist resumes). ABC paints the problem as one of poverty, per Gateway Pundit. Poverty and illiteracy are helpful, but they're not caused by global warming either.

*"Goldman Sachs took a 10% stake in the firm (CCX, Chicago Climate Exchange) at the time and later (Jan. 2007) increased its holdings to at least 19%. CCX is also 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, a firm founded and chaired by Al Gore and co-founded by the above-mentioned former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson. " from American Thinker article, 7/14/09.
P.S. I am the daughter of an Eagle Scout, a Forestry major who made his career in recycled materials. I grew up having my use of water monitored, no air conditioning, told to put a sweater on when it was cold in the house in winter (thermostat turned down). My parents grew up in the Great Depression and had nothing and taught me to live as sparingly as possible. It was all common sense as is conservation and saving the planet. The CCX in Chicago isn't about the planet, it's about billionaires like Soros and Goldman Sachs people getting richer. (framus)

Major League Baseball is a big promoter of global warming.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Fox TV forced to meet with Obama stooge- Obama must believe he can't succeed on his own merits.

It is key for the left to centrally control all information and thought. Just ask Bud Selig.
Politico, 10/6, "Axelrod Meets with Ailes": "At a time of tension between their organizations, White House senior adviser David Axelrod met with Fox News chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes two weeks ago, sources tell POLITICO.

  • The two discussed news coverage and the relationship between the organizations.

An FNC spokesperson tells POLITICO that Ailes and Axelrod had a “cordial conversation” over coffee while the president was in town.

  • Ailes is the founder of Fox News. A key part of
  • Axelrod’s portfolio is the president’s image and broad message.

White House officials have expressed pique with what they consider heavy coverage of Obama critics by opinion shows on the news channel.

Noting coverage on cable’s Fox News Channel, the Fox broadcast network declined to carry Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress, or his most recent prime-time news conference.

  • White House officials did not like that, but say it is not their primary problem with Fox."
WHAT THE HELL BUSINESS IS IT OF GOVERNMENT TO DELIBERATELY ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE NEWS COVERAGE? Answer: It's the Soros way.
  • via mention on Michael Savage show
(I do not watch Fox TV. I do not get any news from tv.-framus).
  • UPDATE: Done deal. FOX News' Shep Smith stumps for Obama "public option," 7:44PM, 10/6/09, via audio just played on Michael Savage radio show. Shep Smith is on the side of the international left to begin with, but his delivery on this issue is quite sickening.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Goldman Sachs has virtual monopoly on media--Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Taibbi, Rolling Stone: "I’m aware that some people feel that it’s a journalist’s responsibility to “give both sides of the story” and be “even-handed” and “objective.” A person who believes that will naturally find serious flaws with any article like the one I wrote about Goldman (Sachs). I personally don’t subscribe to that point of view. My feeling is that
for every one reporter like me, or like far more knowledgeable critics like Tyler Durden,
  • and ledes of the major news organizations.
And there are probably another thousand poor working stiffs who are

(how many political reporters with no experience reporting on financial issues have swallowed whole the news cliche about Goldman being the “smart guys” on Wall Street? A lot, for sure).

  • Goldman has its alumni pushing its views
  • the NYSE,
  • the World Bank,

and numerous other important posts; it also has former players

  • They have the ear of the president if they want it.

Given all of this, I personally think it’s absurd to talk about the need for “balance” in every single magazine and news article.

  • I understand that some people feel differently, but that’s my take on things." 6/30/09, "On Giving Goldman a Chance," by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Saturday, September 19, 2009

2006 AL MVP ballots

Joe Christensen, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/19/06 on XM Radio MLB Channel 175 said of Jeter as an MVP candidate.
  • Jeter didn't even get both New York voters. (see Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger). So much for the supposed favoritism of New York media. Jack O'Connell issued no penalty for Christensen's blatant act.
"November 21, 2006, 6:26 PM EST

BALTIMORE


Thom Loverro, Washington Times
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Dye
6. Suzuki
7. Hafner
8. Guerrero
9. Santana
10. Verlander

Mel Antonen, USA Today
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Mauer
4. Thomas
5. Dye
6. Ortiz
7. Thome
8. Guerrero
9. Hafner
10. Glaus

BOSTON

Sean McAdam, Providence Journal
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Guerrero
8. Hafner
9. Sizemore
10. Santana

Dave Heuschkel, Hartford Courant
1. Jeter
2. Ortiz
3. Morneau
4. Thomas
5. Damon
6. Santana
7. Dye
8. Mauer
9. Guerrero
10. Guillen

NEW YORK

Bob Klapisch, Bergen Record
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Dye
5. Thomas
6. Mauer
7. Ortiz
8. Ordonez
9. M. Rivera
10. Hafner

Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger

1. Morneau

2. Jeter

3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Sizemore
8. Hafner
9. V. Wells
10. Guillen

TAMPA BAY

Marc Topkin, St. Petersburg Times
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Dye
5. Guillen
6. Thomas
7. Mauer
8. Sizemore
9. Suzuki
10. Santana

Eduardo Encina, St. Petersburg Times
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Ortiz
5. Thomas
6. Dye
7. Mauer
8. Hafner 9. Wang
10. Damon

TORONTO

Larry Millson, Toronto Globe and Mail
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Mauer
5. Dye
6. Hafner
7. Guillen
8. Santana
9. Tejada
10. V. Wells

Allan Ryan, Toronto Star
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Santana
6. Hafner
7. Dye
8. A. Rodriguez
9. Guerrero
10. M. Ramirez

CHICAGO

Mark Gonzales, Chicago Tribune
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Dye
4. Mauer
5. Ortiz
6, Thomas
7. Thome
8. Hafner
9. Crawford
10. Sizemore

Joe Cowley, Chicago Sun Times
1. Morneau
2. Dye
3. Santana
4. Thomas
5. Ortiz
6. Jeter
7. Guerrero
8. A. Rodriguez
9. Hafner
10. Pierzynski

CLEVELAND

Jim Ingraham, News Herald
1. Jeter
2. Hafner
3. Ortiz
4. Morneau
5. Sizemore
6. Thomas
7. Mauer
8. Dye
9. Guillen
10. Nathan

Sheldon Ocker, Akron Beacon Journal
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Santana
5. Verlander
6. Dye
7. Thomas
8. Konerko
9. Guerrero
10. Hafner

DETROIT

Danny Knobler, Booth Newspapers
1. Morneau
2. Thomas
3. Mauer
4. Jeter
5. Ortiz
6. Giambi
7. Santana
8. Guillen
9. Dye
10. Sizemore

John Lowe, Detroit Free Press
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. Dye
6. Nathan
7. Santana
8. Mauer
9. Rogers
10. Sizemore

KANSAS CITY

David Boyce, Kansas City Star
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Thomas
4. Dye
5. Santana
6. Ortiz
7. Hafner
8. Guerreo
9. Mauer
10. A. Rodriguez

Bob Dutton, Kansas City Star
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Santana
6. Mauer
7. Dye
8. Cano
9. Tejada
10. Ibanez

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL

Joe Christensen, Minneapolis Star Tribune
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. Mauer
6. Dye
7. Hafner
8. Guillen
9. Giambi
10. Santana

Jason Williams, St. Paul Pioneer Press
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Dye
4. Thomas
5. Ortiz
6. Thome
7. Santana
8. Guerrero
9. Hafner
10. Mauer

LOS ANGELES

Matt Hurst, Riverside Press Enterprise
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz 4. Mauer
5. Thomas
6. Santana
7. Dye
8. Guillen
9. Guerrero
10. Sizemore

Doug Padilla, L.A. News Group
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Mauer
4. Ortiz
5. Thomas
6. Santana
7. Guillen
8. Dye
9. Guerrero
10. Hafner

OAKLAND

Susan Slusser, San Francisco Chronicle
1. Jeter
2. Thomas
3. Santana
4. Morneau
5. Ortiz
6. Dye
7. Mauer
8. Hafner
9. M. Ramirez
10. Sizemore

Joe Roderick, Contra Costa Times
1. Jeter
2. Thomas
3. Morneau
4. Dye
5. Ortiz
6. Guerrero
7. Thome
8. M. Ramirez
9. Guillen
10. Tejada

SEATTLE

Larry Stone, Seattle Times
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Ortiz
4. Thomas
5. Dye
6. Guerrero
7. Hafner
8. Mauer
9. Giambi
10. Guillen

John Hickey, Seattle Post Intelligencer
1. Morneau
2. Jeter
3. Thomas
4. Ortiz
5. A. Rodriguez
6. Dye
7. Guillen
8. Ibanez
9. Guerrero
10. Sizemore

TEXAS

Kat O'Brien, Fort Worth Star Telegram
1. Jeter
2. Morneau
3. Santana
4. Dye
5. Ortiz
6. Thomas
7. Guerrero
8. Hafner
9. Mauer
10. Matthews

Evan Grant, Dallas Morning News
1. Santana
2. Jeter
3. Morneau
4. Dye
5. Thomas
6. Ortiz
7. Mauer
8. Guerrero
9. Sizemore
10. Young"
  • of Jeter as an MVP candidate. Christensen said,
Jeter didn't even get both New York voters. (see Ed Price, Newark Star Ledger). So much for the
  • supposed favoritism of New York media.
USA Today, 11/14/05: "Fred Claire, the former general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers and a former sports writer ...says baseball writers are better suited to vote than any other faction in the game
  • and are ethically grounded.

"I believe in the credibility of writers as a group, and that comes from working with them through the years at a lot of levels," Claire says. "They are the keenest observers of the game. They are less pressured than any group you can think of."

  • (Jack) O'Connell agrees. While many players receive bonuses for winning awards, deepening the potential for conflict,
  • O'Connell says his voters take their ballots seriously.

"I've been doing this for 12 years and I've never had to call after receiving a ballot and say, 'What are you doing?' " he said. "We've had our share of controversy ...

***Jack O'Connell, meet Joe Christensen and pay no attention to the ethics problem. Joe said no to Jeter because he's on a team of rich guys, 9/19/06.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

CNN hacks can't be heard over the proletariat



  • No one threw marbles on the street for the purpose of tripping and crippling police horses as was done by left wing demonstrators in New York protesting the Iraq war (which now, I guess they like) during the Bush administration. framus. from Breitbart TV, via the Drudge Report, 9/12/09.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Where are anti-war protesters v Obama? CINDY SHEEHAN RESPONDS.

Byron York, Washington Examiner: "After my column, "For the left, war without Bush is not war at all," appeared Tuesday, I got a note from Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who was the subject of so much press coverage when she led a protest against the Iraq war outside then-President George W. Bush's ranch in Texas. This is what the note said:

"I read your column about the "anti-war" movement and I can't believe I am saying this, but I mostly agree with you.

The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement.

While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the

DailyKos,

I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

I have my own radio show, "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," and I was out on a four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or Republicans,

but it's about the system.

Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace.

Sincerely,

Cindy Sheehan

After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could verify that the note in fact came from her. She did, and we discussed her plans to protest next week in Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.

  • "I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn't represent much change," Sheehan said. "...8/18/09 via Lucianne.com