CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE DEAD?

All I can say is that it was timely, given the Toyota situation.  I tried to watch them but only got through the first 2 before I got the schtick and was bored with it.  Doubtful someone who reads at a 3rd grade level (publik edumikashun) would understand the concept of "thought police".  "Hey - where's my welfare check at?"

That "Green Police" ad was very chilling!

More charts here than you can shake a stick at.  All of then are VERY interesting.  NONE of them are good news for either the Alarmist crowd or the folks wanting to start up NOAA's new Climate Service.

Here's the link...http://www.c3headlines.com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs.html

Here's the first chart...

So, already the new NOAA Climate Service has credibility issues.  While reporting that the snow melt is occuring earlier in the year, the outfit neglects to inform people that the snow season is starting earlier each year.  Note only earlier, but the early snows are greater than the historical average, so while snow might be melting sooner, its taking longer because there's more of it.

Here's the story linky...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/what-noaa-isnt-saying-about-snow-and-ice/

These graphics tell the tale...

Time to pick on the new NOAA Climate Service in hopes it either gets its act together or better yet, disappears altogether.

This time, the topic is Arctic Ice.  Why NOAA decided to report on the ice thingy up to 2007 and not beyond is an indication that the staff is clueless to our level of knowledge and understanding of the facts.

Yes, there was significant ice melt up to 2007.  This had nothing to do with greenhouse gases, and everything to do with ocean currents, ocean temps, solar activity and cloud cover.  Not mentioned by the Climate Service smarties is the fact that since 2007, Arctic ice has been increasing...a bunch.  So, in two days NOAA has already started to dig a hole for itself.

Here's the linky to the story...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Here are the primary graphics to prove the point being made by WUWT

The more you look at the data the clearer it becomes that this is a fraud being perpetrated on a world that was just willing to sit back and accept what the "experts" were telling them.

I want to know when the Nobel Prize Committee will be asking for Algore's money back?

Algore AND the IPCC owe the Nobel Committee a refund and an apology while they do the perp walk after being convicted of fraud at best, and crimes against humanity at worst if any of their fraudulent behavior/behaviour leads to the starvation and/or death by exposure of any people in developing countries.

We need a climate-savvy talking head on this side of the pond to do this sort of thing.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5106

BTW, John Galt asked yesterday on the B Cast about Tim Ball.  I couldn't find it on the forum but I think he might have been referring to this multi-part radio presentation...

http://algorelied.com/?p=3044

It sounds like the EPA is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (sort of the administrative supreme court).  The claim will be that the finding of CO2 as a pollutant is arbitrary, capricious and based on flawed science.

In the meantime, the iBama administration plans to press ahead with the creation of a new Climate Services bureaucracy..already suffering from credibility woes.

Here's the link to the Climate Services website: http://www.climate.gov/

Here's the link to www.icecap.us where the following video is posted...

Lord Monckton's CO2 Report for December is out.  Link to site here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_december.html

Link to report here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_dec_09.pdf

EPA run amok.  This is unreal.  And the argument against doesn't even include the inefficiency factor whereby it takes about 1.6 times the amount of biofuel to generate the same amount of energy as the fossil fuel it is replacing.  The net effect is to produce MORE pollution, not less, if you just want to accomplish the same amount of work.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Biofuels.htm

Wow...Walter Russell Mead, an awakened giant filled with a terrible resolve.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/09/ny-times-swings-misses-at-ipcc-story-readers-still-in-dark/

With the page 10 graph from Monckton's December CO2 Report displayed on his screen, Joe Bastardi at Accuweather makes his point regarding NOAA's new Climate Service and government's control of information (and misinformation).

http://www.climategate.com/accuweathers-joe-bastardi-warns-of-us-government-shutting-out-skeptics

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdnzIrkUqG

Here's a link to a video of Dr. Tim Ball, a Global Warming skeptic and a guy who actually knows climate science.  It's in 5 parts on youtube.  This is the link to part 1.   You should be able to easily find the other parts on the right hand side of the youtube page.

they'll get it right after Yassir Arafat's family returns his.

Dr. Ball certainly does not mince his words.  It'll be interesting to see if any of the people he branded comeback at him with vigor.

I forgot all about the Club of Rome.  Good to be reminded of all the bleating about over-population, food shortages and drought back in the 70's.

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/home/

Time to play hardball, sort of...

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-inquiry-under-way

FYI Mentioned on the web 
CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE DEAD?

[Of the many online projects headed by Andrew Breitbart, one is the online talk show called the B Cast Live with Scott Baker and Liz Stephans. An offshoot of this program is the Unofficial B Cast Forum. Since Nov., this Forum has featured a ClimateGate thread that has grown considerably and is perhaps one of the best compilations of ClimateGate news collected for the benefit of average person who might need a primer about the scandal that continues to erupt before our eyes.]

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-change-debate-dead-of-many.html