Global Warming Is Killing Polar Bears!

If you believe the environmentalists and the Global Warming alarmists, global warming is destroying polar bear habitats forcing them to live on small, tiny icebergs such as this:

Makes you want to cry, doesn't it? Too bad, this is not reality. According to a study released today:

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.

I'm no math wizard, but 2,100 bears certainly seems like a lot more than 850 bears.

But of course, counting bears has an agenda behind it. As it global warming doesn't, right?

While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.

Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.

Everyone has an agenda. Bear counters, global warming experts. Whose agenda leads to the least bias; now that's the real question. Since the critics have not come up with their own count; you have to at least assume their count is somewhat accurate. Since the critics are also delving immediately into ad hominem attacks here (claiming agenda, bias, etc), I doubt they even know how accurate the numbers are.

Snow Affects Global Warming Hearing…Again

I saw this on Drudge this morning, but Hot Air beat me to it. This meeting was already postponed earlier this year; and now today there is another snow alert for the committee hearing on Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet? God's sense of humor is duly noted once again. Not much to say here, other than (in my best Nelson voice) Ha Ha!

But, I will express dismay that Global Warming is having a negative impact on the brothel business. And this makes me sad.

Brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages.

They claim their best girls are working in ski resorts because a lack of snow has forced tourists to seek other pleasures.

Petra Nestorova, who runs an escort agency in Sofia, said: 'We have hired students, but they are temps and nothing like our elite girls.'

Well, at least the college kids can pick up the slack! Whew!

Global Warming, Al Gore & Tithes and Indulgences

Recently, it was reported that Al Gore's energy use was highly hypocritical, given his demogaugery of the Global Warming issue. According to one paper:

The home's average monthly electric bill last year was just under $1,200, according to bills that The Tennessean acquired from Nashville Electric Service.

Of course, Gore fought back, saying that he offsets his power usage by purchasing carbon offsets to lower his carbon footprint on the planet. He buys them from a company called Generation Investment Management, which coincidently (I'm sure) Al Gore is the Chairman and one of the six founding partners. So, in essence, he profits by using energy and buying offsets from himself. The website is very sparse and non-descriptive as to what it actually does, but Wikipedia says that generally carbon offsets are done by planting trees to offset your carbon use, in an effort to become carbon neutral.

Unfortunately, planting trees as a carbon offset is very much in question; as a tree gives off more carbon dioxide when it is decaying than they absorb while they are alive. So, planting trees to offset your carbon usage is completely useless. We won't focus on this; as there is no evidence Gore is using his company to "plant trees" to offset his carbon usage. It's very possible it does investment more wisely. It's irrelevant anyways.

The real point is that, to reduce the sin of using more power than the average American, Gore is buying his indulgences by tithing to a corporation that forgives him of his sins. It's all very religious. Very medieval.

Gore has also questioned that the media is too fair, in its reporting of Global Warming, noting that 53% (or so) of news stories doubt global warming exists. He thinks the coverage should more reflect his view that Global Warming is real and dangerous.

As Opinion Journal notes:

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

In reality this is a Sacrament of Pennance, "In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made."

So, as long as Gore can continue to pay for his sins, he is free to commit as many as he wants. This is a similar setup to what Kyoto was, where countries are allowed to continue to purchase indulgences to pay the price of your sins.

Carbon offsetting has become an ultra-fashionable way for the wealthy middle classes to assuage their green guilt by use of a little cash and equally scant thought. The theory behind carbon offsetting is simple: you can repair the damage created by your flight - in the form of emissions of carbon dioxide (the main man-made greenhouse gas) - or other profligate consumption, such as driving a gas-guzzling car, by paying an offset firm to fund the cutting of CO2 production elsewhere, for example by planting trees.

In a world, where money fixes everything. Money gets you a good lawyer to get out of jail, money buys your way into a club, money buys you beauty; it's not surprising that money cures your sins and lets you indulge in destroying a planet you are supposed to love.

In fact, we have colleges and countries becoming "carbon neutral" through buying indulgences - and proud of it to boot.

The achievement means that the campus has reduced emissions of the gases that contribute to global warming to 7 percent below what it produced in 1990. The reduction was achieved through the purchase of carbon dioxide offsets.

So, what we have here is a college claiming to be more "environmentally friendly" by buying offsets, which actually raise the theoretical carbon footprint of the country where it bought them. So there is no real "reduction" - just the purchasing of continued indulgences. What this means, is that, if you are a country that sells indulgences - and this, buying someone else's sins - your future prosperity is limited, because your carbon footprint cannot surpass the Kyoto limitations.

Is that what environmentalism is now? Buying indulgences to pay for your sins? And forcing third world countries into perpetual misery in the future because you cannot stop sinning?

Related: Al Gore and the New World Order. Capitalism; that isn't quite. Very Atlas Shrugged, actually.

How to Stop Global Warming

I'm praying to Xenu right now. I knew manmade solutions couldn't prevent this global problem. And according to Paul Hellyer, I'm right. The former Canadian Defense Minister has suggested that we use technology garnered from alien crashes to stop Global Warming™.

According to the story:

They're the cure, says Hellyer, 83. Here's how he sees it:

When a UFO crashed in Roswell, N.M., in 1947 (oh, stop being such a cynic), it offered a techno treasure trove.

Awesome. Just Awesome. We've already learned that Global Warming™ broke my arm last week. This week, we learn that only space aliens can save us! Next, Tom Cruise will be considered the savior. Oh wait.

An Engine that Runs on Water

This is a very interesting video about using water to run an engine. The report says he is already working on a model for the military and has shown it to the government as well. I'm not sure how it works, but it does, it seems like a great move forward for engine technology.

Environmentalist or Terrorist?

This video is creepy on so many levels. Not the least of which is - it's hard to tell if this is a pro-terrorism ad or an environmental ad. Greenpeace. Hmm. Maybe it's a little of both.

Global Warming Broke My Arm

We knew it'd come to this. Global Warming has been just too subtle. I mean, melting ice caps, Al Gore, starving Polar Bears, and New York under 30 feet of water all aren't scary enough. But, now, it's gone too far! It's after our children!

The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

5 degree rise in temperature? Here I thought we were worried about a 1 degree change over a century or something? Man, those climate changes really occur quickly for kids don't they?

Dr Lam said the results, collated from The Children's Hospital at Westmead admissions, back up beliefs that children are less able to regulate their bodies against climate change than adults.

Again. Climate change is more quick to show results in kids than adults. I guess they can really feel that 1/1000th of a degree change faster than adults can.

Can't we see, yet, how silly Global Warming is? This isn't even science. This study is stupidity. Agenda driven science. How do I know? Why it's in the story itself:

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002.

So, what we are really saying is that weather affects childrens' health. If the data is over a 2 year period. It is not climate change. It is weather.

Global Warming broke my arm yesterday. Global warming made my car crash last week. Anyone else have something fun to pin on Global Warming?

Antarctica Not Warming As Expected

Global warming is hot news this month! (Pun intended!)

A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

As we've said before, climate models are flawed.

“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

Again, as we've said. 50 years of data is no way to judge if the planet is warming, cooling or about to explode. It simply is not enough data. You don't judge a year's worth of Stock data on the first hour of trading, do you? It's almost comparable. 100 weather stations on the continent? Is that really enough to judge if a continent is warming or not. Antarctica is bigger than Europe, yet has about 10% of the weather stations that Europe does and you want to say global warming is definite? Puh-lease.

Here's your junk science alert. Mixed with the "Is Antarctica getting cooler?" alert:

“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.

“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.

Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,” he said.

We are "looking for a small signal"? *sniff sniff* Ah, yes, the thinly veiled aroma of an agenda. Nice. When you are looking for a conclusion to prove, you are not practicing science. You are praticing activism.

Snowfall and temperatures have both decreased over the past 50 years now? It's getting colder in Antarctica? Is this what I'm being told here. As Al Gore visited Antarctica recently? He has a knack for causing the coldest days on record to occur.

What's more, perhaps, is the breakup of the Antarctic shelf being caused by wind? Specifically, the westerlies?

“The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent,” he said. “This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we’re only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean.” The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

“The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies,” Bromwich says. “If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.

So winds have intensified over the past 40 years and this may be causing the Antarctic breakup? Not SUVs and Americans? Why is this not in in IPCC report?

Finally, we end with this:

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

Perhaps. But it certainly means that they are not right, doesn't it - at least not globally? We are basing geopolitical decisions on flawed models.

 Update: As if on cue, Al Gore may be planning a rock concert on Antarctica! (hattip: HotAir)

Al Gore, the former vice president and now hit documentary maker, on Thursday added rock promoter to his résumé, announcing plans for a 24-hour concert series on all seven continents to highlight, you guessed it, the dangers of global warming.

That makes sense. In the coldest place on Earth, the place you already fear is warming and would flood the planet. Bring in a ton of people; lights, heat generating equipment to warm it up quicker. Love it. Love it.

Global Warming Hearing Canceled

Didn't I say that God had a sense of humor? According to the Drudge Report (link may become outdated):

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

What other comment is necessary, other than (in my best Nelson voice) Ha Ha!

Global Warming and Glaciers

New data suggests that glaciers are not melting at an increased rate; but that the rate is more steady that environmentalists would have us believe. Go figure.

The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.

But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.

Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.

"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown."

Isn't this what I've been saying post after post? You cannot predict the future with a few current variables. The planet is billions of years old. We have accurate data for about 100 years (or less). How can we possibly know the future when we barely understand the present. We don't trust weather forecasts 2 weeks ahead, why do we trust computer based predictions 100 years ahead of time?

Based on all the expert opinions out there, you'd think we had thousands of people studying the glaciers, wouldn't you? Or at least that scientists have examined many of the glaciers, at least. Not so.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

More...

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

Who needs geologists, when you have politicians and activists?