Global Warming Archives

California's insane global warming initiative, my new Forbes.com article

By Michael Fumento

What state ranks third in unemployment, second in foreclosures, has the nation's worst credit rating, is running a $19 billion deficit - yet insists on spending billions on a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan that can't possibly impact global warming?

"Hasta la vista to a million jobs, baby!"

Yes, it's California, land of the Governator, who four years ago signed a bill that will shortly begin saying "Hasta la vista, baby!" to perhaps a million jobs. Yet there's hope the prosperity terminator can be stopped, with Prop 23 to be voted on in November.

Read about how incredibly bad the legislation is and how the state foisted it on an ignorant (not stupid) public in my new article, "California's Jobs Terminator" at Forbes.com.

September 16, 2010 08:55 AM  ·  Permalink

Obama exploits oil spill to boost support for climate bill

By Michael Fumento

"President Obama tried Wednesday to channel public outrage about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill into support for a climate-change bill, seeking to redefine an issue that threatens to tarnish his presidency," according to the Washington Post.
I've written on how absolutely anything, and I do mean anything, can and has been used to show the ill impact of global warming, including:

"That does it! We've got to ram that global warming bill through!"

Brain-eating amoebae, brothels struggle, cannibalism, circumcision in decline, Earth to explode, earth upside down, football team migration, Garden of Eden wilts, invasion of king crabs, Italy robbed of pasta, killer cornflakes, Loch Ness monster dead, mammoth dung melt, opera house to be destroyed, seals mating more, spiders invade Scotland, squid larger, squid tamed, UFO sightings, Vampire moths, violin decline, witchcraft executions.

Now it appears absolutely anything can be used as an excuse to pass climate change legislation. I think we should all help our president by coming up with even more reasons! I'll start it off and you can send your contributions, which I can then post and subsequently hand deliver to our Chief Executive. The best will probably be those that relate in some way specifically to Obama.

  • The pet dog, Boa, piddled the carpet in the Oval office.

  • "Those idiot birthers just won't quit!"

  • "30 Rock" last night was a rerun.

  • Obama saw a cloud formation that looked just like global warming.

  • His organic bread turned green overnight. (No, wait! That happened to me!)

  • "Those damned "v1agra" and "V!agra" emails are getting through the spam filter.

  • Michelle had "a headache" last night.

  • To honor veterans of the Seminole Indian War.

  • Obama had the strangest dream in which cute little bunnies became man-eating snails.

  • They've released another DVD edition of The Wizard of Oz.

    • June 3, 2010 10:32 AM  ·  Permalink

      What goes 'round comes 'round on global warming (my Forbes piece)

      By Michael Fumento

      Some global warming skeptics have been using the remarkably cold winter and record snowfalls to attack the idea of global warming. Believers are crying foul. "You're confusing weather with climate!" they insist.

      Yes, global warming does cause cannibalism!

      And they're right. But they invented the game a long time ago and have been deftly playing it ever since.

      Among the complainers is Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, "The Earth is really, really big," he condescendingly but correctly observes in a nationally syndicated column. "It's so big that it can be cold here and warm elsewhere - and this is the key concept - at the same time. Even if it were unusually cold throughout the continental U.S., that still represents less than 2% of the Earth's surface."

      He makes other points, too, but what he somehow misses is that the warmists never hesitate to use any unusual phenomena to assert their case. "Any?" you ask with incredulity. "Any!" I respond with assurance. Check out the list at this Web site. One glance blows you away. It includes everything from "acne" to "yellow fever," with "short-nosed dogs endangered" in between.

      Moreover, time and again the warmists have use terribly cold weather and blizzards to say "global warming is at it again!" and that includes a Bill McKibben column that appeared in the Washington Post just five days before Robinson's column!

      Read about it in my new Forbes Online piece, "Weather Hype, Climate Trype."

      March 5, 2010 09:38 AM  ·  Permalink

      global warming as religion

      By Michael Fumento

      Everything I write that I plan to place in a publication I first run past my best friend Matt, a truly gifted editor. One of his special "talents" in my case, though, is that he has no great expertise in science or health or really any of the topics I write about. Therefore things I often assume the reader will understand he's able to help me reframe wording and arguments to make them more comprehensible.

      St. Alus of Goreus

      What Matt does well is religion. He's very much a C.S. Lewis fan, but has an extremely broad background in theological writings. He's more into the moderns than the classics.

      As it happens, of all the science and health issues I do write about, which is a lot, the one that's truly caught Matt's imagination is global warming. Mind you, sometimes I catch onto things instantly that other people never grasp. It's part of my forte. But other times I can be a bit slow to grasp what others might more quickly. So I had to ponder Matt's fascination with global warming whereas you, gentle reader, might have latched onto it pretty quickly.

      The answer, of course, is that global warming is a religion.

      Mind, I'm not saying it doesn't have scientific aspects.

      The earth has measurably warmed since the mid-1800s. And there is validity to the greenhouse effect theory. We just don't know why the earth has warmed, save that it also warmed during medieval times without any need for man-made greenhouse gases.

      As to the greenhouse effect theory, as I understand it it suffers in two major ways. First, there are all sorts of natural phenomenon that serve to counteract the effect of GHGs reflecting heat back into outer space. Second, we don't know what concentrations are required to do this reflecting. It could be vastly higher levels than we're at or in fact will ever reach, because every ton of GHG released into the atmosphere has slightly less of an effect than the ton before.

      But many religions have a lot of truth at the core, even as others were made up by a single person out of whole cloth.

      The idea of global warming as religion is hardly new, insofar as a Google search on the term brings up seven million references. It appears to have been popularized by the late novelist Michael Crichton whose 2003 essay on it can be found here.

      I'm not going to summarize it for you, but save to say global warming has at least two major features associated it with religion.

      First is the tremendous reliance on faith. No matter how many times the warmists are refuted on the data, they never waver in their faith. But the second, and the truly obnoxious aspect, is the fanaticism. Religious wars tend to be the bloodiest, and these people tend to be incredibly vicious in every way, whether trying to identify all serious skeptics as being associated with industry (I've been "linked to" ExxonMobil in a dozen ways, yet I've never gotten a bit of support, financial or otherwise, from any petroleum company) or merely being crackpots.

      Today I read we're "the same people who told you smoking wasn't harmful." Golly, I don't recall ever saying that. Ihave said smoking is just about the stupidest thing healthwise an individual can do.

      Apologies to those of you for whom this is nothing new (but nobody forced you to read this far!), but I thought that what was novel was that my friend, whose tremendous love in life is theology, picked up on this aspect probably without anybody overtly suggesting to him that global warming was a religion. Like the canary in the coal mine, he simply picked up on the danger.

      February 21, 2010 09:48 AM  ·  Permalink

      Getting it partly right on weather vs. climate

      By Michael Fumento

      Eugene Robinson in today's Washington Post protests that global warming skeptics are using the current (though very long) cold snap in the mid-Atlantic region, which encompasses the nation's capital, to confuse weather - a short-term phenomenon - with climate.

      Proof of global warming?

      Robinson, who last year won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, correctly notes that, "the Earth is really, really big. It's so big that it can be cold here and warm elsewhere - and this is the key concept - at the same time. Even if it were unusually cold throughout the continental United States, that still represents less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface."

      True enough. And he adds:

      Those who want to use our harsh winter to 'disprove' the theory that the planet's atmosphere is warming should realize that anecdotal evidence always cuts both ways. Before the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, crews were using earth-movers and aircraft to deposit snow on the ski runs - the winter had been unusually warm. Preliminary data from climate scientists indicate that January, in terms of global temperatures, was actually hotter than usual. Revelers participating in Rio de Janeiro's annual carnival, which ended Tuesday, sweltered in atypical heat, with temperatures above 100 degrees. Fortunately, the custom during carnival is not to wear much in the way of clothing.

      Again, true enough. And regrettably I once again missed going to the Rio Carnival, but hope springs eternal.

      But here's what he doesn't say. His people have long played exactly the same game.

      There's a wonderful website that keep a more or less comprehensive list of all the things that warmists have attributed to "global climate change" - and mind you, the very term "global climate change' was coined precisely to be able to tie any change, including things associated with cooling - to the effects of greenhouse gases. One glance at the site blows you away. I want you to click on this link right now and not continue with this blog until you have.

      No. Stop. You didn't click on the link. Do it now.

      Okay, the point is made, isn't it? It includes everything from "acne" to "yellow fever" with "short-nosed dogs endangered" in between. And there are lots of instances of weather change.

      In fact, time and again cold weather and its fall-out, including blizzards, have been attributed to "global climate change."

      This is from an article of mine that appeared 13 years ago:

      But there it was, the cover of the Jan. 22 Newsweek: "Blizzards, floods & hurricanes: Blame global warming." There also was the New York Times front-page article by William K. Stevens headlined "Blame global warming for the blizzard" and a nationally syndicated article by environmentalist Jessica Matthews that ran under titles such as "Brrr, global warming brings our blizzard."

      Moreover, I note. Moreover, I say for emphasis, while this was a perfect opportunity for Robinson to show he was playing fair, he could have pointed out they're doing it even now.

      Moreover, Robinson could have seen it in his own newspaper from just days ago.

      There it was, right in the headline of a column by uber-environmentalist Bill McKibben, "Washington's Snowstorms, Brought to You by Global Warming."

      Time magazine also argues "climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm."

      And of course I could go on and on, but point made.

      If you live in the mid-Atlantic, don't go out without a coat. But hypocrisy is a mantle never worn well.

      February 19, 2010 10:49 AM  ·  Permalink

      "Climate change of pace," (the confessions of Phil Jones), my Forbes Online piece

      By Michael Fumento

      "You can't handle the truth!
      There have been a lot of well-kept secrets among the global warmists - which is primarily why the so-called "Climategate" stolen e-mails proved such a scandal. They showed that, in addition to squelching dissenters, the warmists were admitting things to each other that they were denying to the public. They felt, as a Jack Nicholson character put it, "You can't handle the truth!"

      But now the truth is coming out. One fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming for quite awhile. The other is that temperatures in the Middle Ages, at the very least in the northern hemisphere, were considerably warmer than they are now. (See inset.)

      Conceding both these points in a BBC interview was Professor Phil Jones. He was director of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, where the hacked Internet server released thousands of e-mails and other documents. Read about his shockingly honest admissions - and the ramification of them - in my new Forbes Online piece.

      February 18, 2010 09:06 AM  ·  Permalink

      U.N. Climate panel pummeled for misinformation, high and low

      By Michael Fumento

      From the very top of the earth to the bottom, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just can't get it right.

      I recently wrote of how the panel's latest (2007) report, the one that split the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, was finally caught on what was an obviously false statement: That the glaciers atop the Himalayas would be melted by 2035 because of global warming. It would take an incredible amount of sustained heat to do that. The only question was what source the panel used, and that proved to be an off-the-cuff assertion by a global warming activist as reprinted in an environmentalist journal - with a mathematical error to boot!

      Now it's been revealed that the panel grossly overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

      Its latest report says 55 percent of the country is below sea level, leaving it highly prone to flooding along rivers that would ostensible rise with warming temperatures. But Netherlanders can take off their clogs and relax. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, just 26 percent of the country is below sea level and 29 percent susceptible to river flooding. You can see a lot of pretty maps regarding the subject by the Dutch Ministry of Transport here.

      The IPCC insists that it's a minor point in a report 3,000 pages long and doesn't affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe. Of course it doesn't, any more than does the Himalayan nonsense.

      You can get now; you won't drown!CAPTION

      But this latest wooden shoe to the butt again illustrates that this allegedly thoroughly documented reports by the allegedly top experts in world has a nasty tendency to simply include anything that will make its case seem stronger. Taken in light of the recent "Climategate" revelations that scientists who came to the "wrong" conclusions had their materially systematically excluded from the report and other IPCC documents, it shows just how shaky this house of cards is.

      February 15, 2010 06:21 PM  ·  Permalink

      Scientist at center of email scandal admits no recent warming

      By Michael Fumento

      There has been no global warming for a long time, as I wrote recently in Forbes Online ("Show Me the Warming," Nov. 30, 2009).

      I noted that Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the warmist bible, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report - told Congress two years ago that evidence for manmade warming is "unequivocal." He claimed "the planet is running a 'fever' and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse." Yet in one of the released emails he admitted that data showed there was no warming "at the moment." I then explained:

      But Trenberth's "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade. "There has been no [surface-measured] warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995," observes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. "According to satellite data, global warming stopped about 10 years ago and there's no way to know whether it's happening now," says Roy Spencer, former NASA senior scientist for climate studies.
      Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
      The atmospheric concentration of CO2 keeps going up, yet temperatures for the last decade have been flat

      The importance of this is that during the past decade, we've belched so-called "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) into the atmosphere at ever greater rates,from 6,510 million metric tons in 1996 to 8,230 in 2006 - a 26% increase. Atmospheric concentrations have also reached the highest levels ever observed.

      Now Professor Phil Jones, director the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Center and the central figure in the 'Climategate' affair, has conceded there's been no 'statistically significant' warming.

      Naturally he said it was a "blip" and not a trend, and he may well prove right. But that doesn't eliminate the problem that this "blip" has been occurring with historic GHG emissions, therefore the grossly simplistic formula of GHG emissions = warming is false.

      He also made what may be the strongest admission by a major warmist that the earth could have been warmer during medieval times (about 800 - 1300) when mankind was emitting essentially no GHGs. (Viking ships did use sails, you may recall.) And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

      Heretofore, warmists tried to dismiss this altogether or say it only applied to northern climes.

      Nevertheless, "There is much debate over whether the MWP was global in extent or not," Jones admitted, adding "The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia."

      He said that, "For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere" and "There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." Still, "If the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented."

      In that case, he should be informed of a Nature magazine study last year indicating water temperatures in the area of Indonesia were the same in the MWP as they are today.

      You can read some of the specific questions and answers here with annotations by Indur Goklany.

      Let's salute Phil Jones's honesty - even if he only came by it relatively late in life.

      February 14, 2010 01:44 PM  ·  Permalink

      Roundup of wisdom regarding the current weather icebox and the global warming debate

      By Michael Fumento

      The Washington Post Sunday edition devotes a page to the discussion of what impact the current cold snap and immense amount of snow (a record in the nation's capital) has and should have on the global warming debate generally and legislation specifically. Most of the space goes to the liberal but often thoughtful Dana Milbank, with snippets to others.

      This could have been Washington, D.C. last week

      Score one for both science and humor when Milbank asserts "As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution."

      He's right of course. For the zillionth time, weather and climate are two entirely different things. A hot year with a drought doesn't prove the globe is heating up, much less than the alleged heating up is man-made. But the greens make such claims time and again. It's no more valid for other to say a cold, snowy winter shows the opposite. That's just the point Milbank goes on to make:

      Still, there's some rough justice in the conservatives' cheap shots. In Washington's blizzards, the greens were hoist by their own petard.

      For years, climate-change activists have argued by anecdote to make their case. Gore, in his famous slide shows, ties human-caused global warming to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought and the spread of mosquitoes, pine beetles and disease. It's not that Gore is wrong about these things. The problem is that his storm stories have conditioned people to expect an endless worldwide heat wave, when in fact the changes so far are subtle.

      Other environmentalists have undermined the cause with claims bordering on the outlandish; they've blamed global warming for shrinking sheep in Scotland, more shark and cougar attacks, genetic changes in squirrels, an increase in kidney stones and even the crash of Air France Flight 447. [There's a website that lists over 600 things that have allegedly been caused by global warming, from "acne" to "yellow fever."] When climate activists make the dubious claim, as a Canadian environmental group did, that global warming is to blame for the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, then they invite similarly specious conclusions about Washington's snow -- such as the Virginia GOP ad urging people to call two Democratic congressmen "and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend."

      Says Milbank, "Argument-by-anecdote isn't working."

      The Post then asked "political and environmental experts whether the record snowstorms buried climate change legislation this year." Here are some excerpts:

      CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
      Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003; governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001; chair of the Republican Leadership Council

      It shouldn't, but it will. Among the reasons winter storms will make this issue more politically challenging are overreach and simplification - on both sides of the debate. "An Inconvenient Truth" brought the issue of climate change to the fore, but many of the charts implying that the world's end is near were overly dramatic.

      KENNETH P. GREEN AND STEVEN F. HAYWARD
      Resident scholar and F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow, respectively, at the American Enterprise Institute

      The corpus of climate legislation was already cooling before Snowmageddon. The cold wind that buried its chances this year didn't come off the snow burying Washington: It came off horrific unemployment reports, lackluster economic growth, massive Tea Party rallies and vicious town hall meetings. After the breakdown in Copenhagen, the explosion of "Climategate" and the election of Scott Brown, the Democrats' rapid pivot to focus on jobs was inevitable.

      DAVID G. HAWKINS
      Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate programs

      Sorry, nothing worth excerpting!

      DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
      Democratic pollster and author

      The recent bout of wintry weather and the overall political climate have almost certainly killed climate-change legislation this year.

      The science that supports the causes and effects of global warming has become increasingly open to doubt and question. The weather this winter, particularly in the past week or so, makes it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger and suggests that global warming may well not be as inexorable a force as some believe.

      Further, the political downside to supporting the legislation is unambiguous. Americans are primarily concerned with jobs and the economy. Any significant effort spent on other legislation will reignite charges, originally hurled during the lengthy and unsuccessful health-care debate, that the White House and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with voters' needs.

      EMILY FIGDOR
      Federal global warming program director of Environment America

      The snowstorms that ground the nation's capital to a halt only underscored the need for bold action to fight global warming. Heavier, more frequent snowstorms are just what scientists predict in a warming world, as extreme weather events - whether blizzards or heat waves - become more common.

      Well! I guess there's something to be said for predictability!

      ED ROGERS
      White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

      There is global climate science and then there is the Global Warming Movement. The movement hijacked the science a long time ago, and it has had its share of setbacks lately. Its leaders have tried to stiff-arm their way past errors, lies, fraud, pointless tax increase proposals and some really peculiar posing in Copenhagen.

      Now they have suffered a coup de grace: public ridicule brought on by a record-breaking blizzard blasting their East Coast home base. The movement was already dead in Congress for 2010 (its climate-change bill has been sidelined), but Snowmageddon buried it. How could it be that heat waves evidenced global warming, but so did a cold wave? The public isn't buying it anymore.

      In November, the public will give a cold shoulder to a bunch of intellectually frozen hypocrites who demand economic sacrifice to solve a problem that voters don't see or feel. At least for a while, the left will have to think up a new way to dictate a lifestyle for the rest of us. Maybe now the science can continue without the clumsy overreaching of the movement's priestly class.

      And finally, on a different page, uber-environmentalist Bill McKibben argues that, yes, the cold weather and blizzards are the result of global warming. So it goes.

      February 14, 2010 09:37 AM  ·  Permalink

      Cold, bitter winter is "proof" of global warming

      By Michael Fumento

      "Winter offered as proof of warming" declares a headline in the print edition of the Washington Post, although perhaps the irony of that later struck the editors and they softened it a bit in the online edition to "Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says."poll

      Nothing especially outrageous here. The enviros have been doing this for years; indeed, it's why they adopted the term "global climate change" so that any change in climate or even just weather - which obviously this is - can be portrayed as a result of man's nefarious activities in putting greenhouse gases into the air. The report, incidentally, is from the National Wildlife Federation that makes money by promoting global warming in the same way that GM makes money selling trucks.

      But folks are having trouble buying it. A poll released Monday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked respondents to rank 21 issues in terms of priority. Global warming came in dead last. It's come in last before, but this time just 28 percent of those surveyed list global warming as a top priority, down from 35 percent in 2008.

      IPCC: "Our bad! Global warming not about to melt Himalayas."

      By Michael Fumento

      "The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, a large number of them may disappear by 2035 because of climate change." Such was the lede of one of countless articles about how 1.3 billion Asians were in imminent danger of first flooding and then drought. And that's not to mention the certain extinction of the abominable snowman.

      He's safe!

      You didn't need a Cray computer to figure that this was nonsense, that temperatures would have to more or less instantly soar to incredible heights and stay there for this to happen. (As it turns out, 18 degrees Centigrade.) But people wrote it, read it, and believed it. You'd think a magazine with the name Technology Review would know better, yet its latest issue declares: "The Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers in India, China, and other Asian countries could be gone in 25 years."

      Why did they say it? In part, because it was convenient. And in part because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Now the IPCC is saying, "Whoopsie!"

      In a statement released on Wednesday, the group admitted "poorly substantiated estimates." More specifically, it appears to have been based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published in 1999. That story, in turn, was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist in Delhi. And Hasnain has since admitted his assertion "speculation" unsupported by any formal research.

      The IPCC says it will "probably" issue a formal correction. "Probably?"

      But admit it guys, wasn't it fun while it lasted?

      January 21, 2010 05:48 PM  ·  Permalink

      Yes, Chris Mooney really is dishonest.

      By Michael Fumento

      You've heard of pseudoscience, of course. Well, Chris Mooney is a pseudoscientific writer. He twists and bends and remolds data any way he can to come to the "proper" conclusion.

      "Yeah, I kinda make 'em up as I go along!"

      Among his works, a book called "The Republican War on Science." It was actually just a criticism of anything Mooney doesn't like, portrayed as if emanating from the GOP. Another work of his was the 2007 book "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics and the Battle Over Global Warming."

      Yes, it was another argument that clearly global warming was leading to an increased number of hurricanes and intensity of hurricanes, a thesis I had criticized two years earlier when the whole thing erupted in the wake of Rita and Katrina. Pseudoscientists and pseudoscientist writers had built a whole thesis around a grand total of two data points, rather like looking at two stars in the sky and seeing the outline of Marilyn Monroe.

      Well, the years went by and the 2005 season proved to be a total anomaly. Indeed, by the end of the 2009 season hurricane activity was at a 30 year low. I blogged on this and then later had a piece in Forbes Online.

      Mooney, who has a blog sponsored by global warming cheerleader Discover Magazine, smirked and smiled about my blog rather than wait for the full evidence in my piece. I, in turn, thought he had seen the whole piece and on that basis interpreted his response as dishonest. Upon realizing my error, I apologized and told him I'd give him a chance to respond to the actual article that would indeed show hurricane activity was at a 30-year low.

      Rather than wait, he presented a chart he claimed refuted my assertion. Problem is, as you can see here, his data effectively ended with 2008. I didn't say 2008 was a 30-year low, I said 2009.

      When I the article appeared I provided the hyperlink on his blog and asked for a response.

      None. "The silence was deafening," as they say. Mooney had titled his original blog "Fumento swings . . . and misses." Now it was clear that Mighty Mooney had struck out.

      My apologies for apologizing. Yes, Chris Mooney is dishonest.

      January 8, 2010 07:49 PM  ·  Permalink

      Where did all the global warming hurricanes go? (My Forbes article)

      By Michael Fumento

      The cover of Al Gore's new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, features a satellite image of the globe showing four major hurricanes - results, we're meant to believe, of man-made global warming. All four were photoshopped. Which is nice symbolism, because in a sense the whole hurricane aspect of warming has been photoshopped.

      Photoshopped cover, photoshopped hysteria

      As I note in my article in Forbes, it was all really based on just two data points - with the names "Katrina" and "Rita."

      Now with both greenhouse gas emissions and levels in the atmosphere are at their highest, but this year had the fewest hurricanes since 1997, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the first time since 2006 no hurricanes even made landfall in the U.S.; indeed hurricane activity is at a 30-year low.

      Whoops! So much for Gore's cover and all the hullabaloo.

      In a 2005 column, I gave what now proves an interesting retrospective.

      "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name was global warming." So wrote environmental activist Ross Gelbspan in a New York Times op-ed that one commentator aptly described as "almost giddy." The green group Friends of the Earth linked Katrina to global warming, as did Germany's Green Party Environment Minister.

      The most celebrated of these commentaries was Chris Mooney's 2007 book Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics and the Battle Over Global Warming. Mooney, for the record, is also author of the best-selling book The Republican War on Science.

      Yet there were top scientists in 2005 such as Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, publishing data showing the Rita-Katrina blowhards had no business building a case around two anomalies. But his paper was squelched by Kevin Trenbarth of "Climategate" fame.

      It's fascinating stuff. Read it!

      December 30, 2009 10:29 AM  ·  Permalink

      Santa to move headquarters to Palm Springs!

      By Michael Fumento

      Or somewhere new, anyway. By necessity. So says Al Gore.

      Endangered species?

      In a speech at the Copenhagen climate summit he declared: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

      We're talking a massive relocation of elves, folks.

      In a curious twist, Dr. Maslowski thereupon claimed that Gore had distorted his views. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," he told the Times of London. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

      Another Gore fibbery! But apparently not.

      Climate Depot's Marc Morano obtained a Danish government handout citing the Monterey, California professor's modeling and reaching the same conclusion as Gore. "Projecting the trend into the future indicates that autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016 (Maslowski, 2009)."

      Which simply means Gore didn't intentionally misrepresent Maslowski, not that either the professor or the former veep is right. Still, you can't blame Santa for being just a bit nervous.

      December 15, 2009 11:39 AM  ·  Permalink

      World Meteorological Organization blows hot air on global warming

      By Michael Fumento

      "The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday," according to the New York Times. "The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here [in Copenhagen] seek to devise a global response to climate change."

      Yes, and a false and misleading rejoinder at that. The statement appears here in what's obviously a propaganda sheet. At a glance it would seem to refute my recent assertion in Forbes that there's been no warming over the past decade.


      But it's a matter of which interpretation do you think counts. Yes, the last decade was warmer than the previous decade. But there has been no warming within that decade. My point remains intact: During the last decade GHG emissions and ambient levels have gone up every year whereas warming has not as this chart shows. That's the only point I was trying to make, that even as every year the world poured more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the ambient concentrations of those gases rose, there was no rise in warming. The formula of "more GHGs = more warming" is overly simplistic; something is going on in nature that's seriously impacting temperatures.

      Oh, and as far as that "modern record" stuff goes, that's sneaky stuff too. As I pointed out, and as this graph shows, it was much warmer in the medieval warming period - you know, back when those Viking ships were pumping CO2 in the atmosphere and when the Carolingian empire got most of its power from coal-fired power plants.

      So, yeah, the WMO is kinda basically lying.

      December 11, 2009 10:54 AM  ·  Permalink

      EPA moves to bypass climate change legislation

      By Michael Fumento

      While climate experts were off at the Copenhagen summit working on their tans (in sunny Copenhagen), the EPA pulled a fast one. As the Washington Post noted in an article that was actually quite good in providing the negatives, the agency formally announced that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and said it would begin drafting regulations to reduce those emissions.

      "Is it hot out here or is it just me?"

      So if you think the recent poll showing most Americans reject the basis of global warming legislation, plus the scandal over "climategate," may have derailed the Waxman-Markey legislation you may be right. But you'd be wrong in thinking the crisis has passed. The EPA was explicitly given the power by the Supreme Court to regulate greenhouse gases and could produce a web of regulations far worse than Waxman-Markey. The only recourse of opponents would be in the courts (see previous sentence) or via Congress cutting funding to the agency. And would this Congress really do that?

      For more, see this Forbes piece on the issue published before the EPA announcement, and the EPA press release. This is bad news, folks!

      December 9, 2009 04:07 PM  ·  Permalink

      "Show me the warming," my piece in Forbes Online

      By Michael Fumento

      From the thousands of email and other documents that comprise "Climategate," this is one of the most interesting: It's a "travesty" that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment." (Emphasis added.) Further, "any consideration of geoengineering [is] quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!"

      What does "at the moment" actually mean? Would you guess the past 10 years! That's right; no warming in the past decade even as so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" and ambient concentrations are at historical highs! Does this prove global warming is a "hoax"? No. But it proves the simple equation of "more greenhouse gases = more warming" is false. Read about it in my new Forbes Online piece, "Show Me the Warming."

      December 3, 2009 03:27 PM  ·  Permalink

      Daily Show's Jon Stewart on Climategate rejection of "inconvenient" data

      By Michael Fumento

      After playing a news clip stating, "University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out" Daily Show host Jon Stewart declared, "Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s! Laminated!"

      December 2, 2009 11:11 AM  ·  Permalink

      Global warming email scandal: Warmist expert's email totally contradicts congressional testimony

      By Michael Fumento

      "It has become evident that the planet is running a 'fever' and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse. 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and it is 'very likely' due to human activities. This is the verdict of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), known as AR4 . . . . Warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now clear from an increasing body of evidence showing discernible physically consistent changes."

      - Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the warmist bible, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, congressional testimony of February 2007.


      "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," and "any consideration of geoengineering [is] quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!"

      - Kevin Trenberth, unintentionally released email to various recipients, October 14, 2009.

      November 26, 2009 10:01 AM  ·  Permalink

      Lack of global warming is "hot" issue

      By Michael Fumento

      "Climatologists baffled by Global Warming Time-Out" declares the headline in Germany's Spiegel Online.

      "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."

      Whatever the cause, it remains that there's been no time out in the production of so-called "greenhouse gases." More are being pumped out worldwide and the atmospheric concentration is higher than ever. Yet even while "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," it's gone nowhere since then.

      It what may a poor choice of words, Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, told Spiegel, ""It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community."

      November 23, 2009 12:13 PM  ·  Permalink

      Poll shows belief in man-made warming down, but why?

      By Michael Fumento

      A new poll shows a sharp decline over the last year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey by the highly-reputable Pew Research Center, while 44% of respondents saw global warming as a very serious problem in April 2008, that's down to just 35% now.

      algore
      "What!!!


      Of course, all things are relative. With the economy and unemployment such as it is, despite that miraculous stimulus bill, you can see how a problem that's not supposed to truly impact us for a while to come might slide down the pecking order.

      BUT, the survey also shows that now just 36% of Americans say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, down from 47% last year. That's a scientific belief, independent of the economy right?

      I'd argue otherwise. Wild speculation about man-made impact on the environment is a rich man's game. It's true that the warming we've seen until about a decade ago when it stopped - though exactly why and for how long is debated - either is or isn't partly man-made, regardless of the economy or regardless of what the public thinks. But when you don't feel so rich, somehow scientific evidence that seemed so compelling before simply isn't now.

      October 23, 2009 02:48 PM  ·  Permalink

      Why does recycled paper make such crappy toilet paper?

      By Michael Fumento

      "I remember the importance of toilet paper while being shelled a few times, a couple of times while on the throne. I don't understand why they can't do re-cycled AND fluffy. Why are they exclusive?"

      122 mm shell
      One 122 mm mortar round can ruin that beautiful experience on the throne

      That's from an officer I befriended at Camp Corregidor in Ramadi, Iraq, where it rained shells so often we had to wear body armor at all times outside of fortified buildings. He saw my blog "Enviros want to wipe out soft toilet paper!" concerning the greens wanting us to use recycled toilet paper instead of the softer kind from older - but not "old growth" - trees. Older trees are better carbon sinks, meaning better at soaking up CO2.

      It's all about fiber length. Longer fibers mean fewer knots and it's those knots you feel, whether in TP or in your bedsheets or in clothes - albeit not in Army uniforms, which are part polyester anyway.

      That's why Egyptian cotton is the best, because it has the longest fibers. Recycled paper products inherently have fiber of short length, hence lots of knots. Not so important when you're writing on it, but rather more so when wiping with it and - although I personally haven't had the experience - doing so with 122 mm rounds dropping around your throne.

      October 1, 2009 09:53 AM  ·  Permalink

      Enviros trying to wipe out soft toilet paper!

      By Michael Fumento

      Okay, this time they've gone too far!

      Now, says the Washington Post, environmentalists are trying to wipe out plush toilet paper!

      They say that's because plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made from older trees - though not what's defined as "old growth" by any means. And older trees, they say, are better for absorbing carbon dioxide and thereby slowing global warming.

      (Have you noticed that there's nothing that can't be tied into global warming?)

      They want us Americans to wipe with the same stuff Europeans use, made from recycled paper goods.

      Well, I've been to Europe a lot and while I'm no xenophobe I must say their toilet paper is just one grade above sandpaper. No, ifs, ands, or butts about it.

      They'll get my soft toilet paper when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

      (Though I really don't want to be found dead sitting on "the throne" . . . )

      September 24, 2009 10:40 AM  ·  Permalink

      My NYPost piece, Waxman-Markey - $10 Trillion for Nothing

      By Michael Fumento

      As I write in the New York Post, the Waxman-Markey climate legislation could cost the nation nearly $10 trillion -- while doing virtually nothing to stop warming.

      That's because to the extent it would reduce warming at all it would do so through limiting "greenhouse gas" emissions, but yet another study has questioned just how much such gases contribute to warming.

      According to this one, published in the American Geophysical Union's official publication, the Journal of Geophysical Research, "We have shown that internal global-climate-system variability accounts for at least 80 percent of the observed global-climate variation over the past half-century."

      And that's not to say the rest is due to greenhouse gases, either.

      We know that there has been NO warming over the last decade, even as the world has been belching GHGs in greater amounts than ever. At the very least this calls into question the equation of "more greenhouse gases equals more warming." It's neither mathematical nor scientific - merely ideological.

      But why would people be so keen on horribly expensive legislation that may not even perceptibly reduce temperatures? Lots of reasons, actually. But here's one, and I've linked to a video clip: At a British forum on July 7, Al Gore crowed that Waxman-Markey is a step toward "global governance." Woo-hoo - world government!

      Too bad if you're not sure that's such a hot thing.

      September 4, 2009 12:14 PM  ·  Permalink

      Study submitted for publication April 1 shows man-made warming very real!

      By Michael Fumento

      Okay, you climate change skeptics, try to respond to this.

      A just-published study, submitted on April 1, uses an exquisite model to show that just the amount of greenhouse gas emanating from the U.S. Capitol Building each year will contribute to a global rise in temperature of 0.8 degrees Centigrade by 2020. In a press conference, the researchers added that this is expected to rise significantly now that Al Franken has been seated in the Senate.

      Aw, c'mon! Would I lie to you?

      August 4, 2009 08:46 AM  ·  Permalink