Thursday, February 25, 2010
But it should be sooner as El Niño is now upon us.
We need cooler weather, and Al's known for cooler climates following him, despite the hot air coming out of his mouth.
Photo from TammyB.
Gore will come to the country to keynote the third staging of the Leadership Conference Series -- a string of lectures aimed at allowing top Philippine leaders from the academe, business, government, and non-government sectors to learn from the experience and expertise of global leaders.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
This Letter presented projections of future sea-level rise based on simulations of the past 22,000 years of sea-level history using a simple, empirical model linking sea-level rise to global mean-temperature anomalies. One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach. First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries. Second, we did not include the effect of the uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions since the Medieval Climate Anomaly in our uncertainty estimates for the twenty-first-century projections. This led to an inconsistency between the twentieth-century simulation used to test the predictive capability of the model and the twenty-first-century simulation, owing to a provisional allowance for warming since the Little Ice Age in the twentieth-century simulations. Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900. Both our simulations of the last deglaciation, and the result that the equilibrium response of sea-level change to temperature is non-linear over the last deglaciation, are robust to the length of the time step used, and are still valid.
As we reported in May 2008, it’s even less of a hill of beans when it is seen in contrast to the budgets of the big Green, NGOs. WWF, for example, took this much money in recent years:Year Income ($US)2003 370,245,0002004 468,889,0002005 499,629,0002006 549,827,0002007 663,193,000TOTAL 2,551,783,000
According to WWF’s latest financial report, 2008 was not quite such a good year for them. They’ve switched their accounting to Euros, rather than dollars, and say that in 2007, they took €508,137,000, and in 2008, they took €447,251,000. Poor WWF. Still, we make that to be roughly $584,000,000 – over half a billion dollars, bringing their total income since 2003 to just over $3.1 billion, not including 2009.
Of interest to some of our readers is the fact that WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies’.
‘Why are you banging on about how much money WWF have, again?’ you may well be asking.
The point is first to demonstrate again that, in purely cash terms, the alarmist cause is considerably better funded. This must also be seen in the context of the rhetoric produced by the likes of Greenpeace, who, as we’ve pointed out before, don’t do so badly themselves. They say that ‘deniers’ have intended ‘to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action’, yet as the events that are unfolding reveal, it is much more organisations such as the WWF who have influenced the debate with misinformation.
We thought it might be time to tot up Greenpeace’s accounts to date…Year Income (US$) Income (Euros)1994 137,358,000 —————-1995 152,805,000 —————-1996 139,895,000 —————-1997 125,648,000 —————-1998 —————- 110,833,0001999 —————- 126,023,0002000 —————- 143,646,0002001 —————- 157,730,0002005 —————- 173,464,0002006 —————- 171,367,0002007 —————- 204,982,0002008 —————- 196,620,000TOTAL 555,706,000 1,284,665,000
To put these crudely into the same terms, we make that $2,373,506,970 ($2.37 billion) at today’s euro to US dollar exchange rate.
Most of this money comes from people who think that they are giving to save the rhino, panda, or the whale, because that’s how Greenpeace and the WWF sell themselves. They hire companies to accost people in the street on their behalf and to phone people, harassing them into signing agreements to pay monthly amounts, deducted automatically from their bank accounts. Yet these organisations don’t simply save whales and rhinos, they use their not inconsiderable financial clout to influence the political agenda throughout the world, in a way that the ‘deniers’ simply have not been able to. This obviously includes preparing ‘research’ that finds its way into IPCC Assessment Reports.
And to think climate skeptics are always accused of being paid hacks. More found at NOConsensus.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.
Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity - 2005 - the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.
The IPCC does indeed conclude that "there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones." If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn't support.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Also, they might try using compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), which use less power but light a bigger area.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
And Al? He's on the panel called "Can We Save the Planet that Sustains Us?" Al will have a moderator, but no, he won't be debating anyone.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Planned Parenthood Pushes Intensive Sex Education for Kids as Young as 10
Sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions. Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic Schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex." the report states.
The report demands that children 10 and older be given a "comprehensive sexuality education" by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as "sexual beings."
"Young people have the right to be informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services," Bert Koenders, the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, wrote in the foreword to the report. It was his organization that helped fund the report.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Read Ms Datiles here:
When Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus praise Jesus as the Savior during nationally-broadcasted music awards programs, no one bats an eye. When professional athletes thank God after scoring a winning point, reporters offer them the microphone. But when football prodigy Tim Tebow decides to share on national TV the story of his mother’s heroic choice to give birth to him after receiving medical advice to have an abortion, he is attacked on all sides by pro-abortion groups, and a media frenzy ensues.
Tim Tebow’s story is all over the news. A winner of the Heisman Trophy, the former Florida Gaters quarterback is not only one of the most celebrated college football players of all time, but a pro-life, evangelical Christian who is proud that his mother chose life over abortion.The harsh reaction of pro-abortion activist groups to the news that Focus on the Family bought a CBS Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow and his mother makes us think about the way the “right to choose” is portrayed by abortion advocates. It offers us a chance to reflect on our understanding of women’s rights, as well as the role of pro-life Christians who have a public presence.