Sanity Injection

Injecting a dose of sanity into your day’s news and current events.

Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Global warming myth continues to unravel

Posted by sanityinjection on January 25, 2010

Ever since those leaked emails surfaced showing British climate scientists deliberately trying to distort data and squash criticism, it seems like more and more cracks continue to appear in the facade of global warming as “settled science”. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change has been forced to admit that one of its assertions – that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 – was not based on solid science. In fact, it was based on one media interview with one scientist, in which that scientist never even used the date 2035.

To make matters worse, it turns out the IPCC knew the item was unsubstantiated, but included it in the report deliberately to frighten Asian countries that get water from the glaciers. They deliberately ignored questions about the claim that were raised when the draft report was issued. This is really the smoking gun that proves what I have been saying all along about a hysteria lobby that is willing to say anything in order to scare people into doing their bidding.

Additionally, we now have proof that the claim that global warming will cause more frequent and stronger natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes is equally without scientific foundation. Much criticized by skeptics when it was dramatically illustrated in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, this turns out to be based on one unpublished report which specifically stated there was insufficient evidence to establish a tie to global warming. So much for rigorously peer-reviewed “settled science.”

In fact, the only “settled science” about global warming is this: Carbon dioxide is a gas which, in sufficient atmospheric quantities, can cause a “greenhouse effect” in which heat becomes trapped. There are other gases, such as methane, that have a stronger greenhouse effect.

It is a long way from that simple science to the conclusion that carbon dioxide produced by industrial sources will inevitably cause an irreversible global warming with catastrophic consequences. You have to get there by starting from a political philosophy that fossil fuels, heavy industry and people who profit from them are bad and should be punished or eliminated. Then you have to ignore the long-term climate records of the earth and evidence of the significant role played by other factors such as solar activity. Follow it up with a healthy dose of deliberate deception and you’ve got yourself a multi-million dollar advocacy industry that promises to provide employment and research grant funding for decades to come by feeding on people’s fear. Nice little recipe, indeed.

How does the story end? Same as the heterosexual AIDS epidemic. When it’s all over, no one shows a shred of remorse for having enthusiastically fed the machine, instead insisting that they were fooled just like everyone else. All the fingers point in a circle, the money gets pocketed, and in a few years there’s a new ManBearPig to start the game all over again.


Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Climate change is real – but in the opposite direction!

Posted by sanityinjection on January 11, 2010

Feeling chilly lately? Well, you’re not alone. The northern hemisphere has experienced a spell of chilly, snowy weather, with the jet stream running much further south than usual and Arctic weather conditions descending into unheard of areas (get your Florida oranges while you still can.)

Of course, short-term events like these neither prove or disprove theories about climate change. But it just so happens that more data is emerging to suggest that the global cooling that has taken place over the last several years – which even the global warming hysteria industry has been forced to admit after Arctic summer sea ice increased by a whopping 26 percent over the last couple of years – may be set to continue for decades. (So much for the “endangered” polar bears.)

The Daily Mail reports that Mojib Latif, one of the leading members of the IPCC group that has been pushing climate change theory, now believes that deep ocean cooling and warming cycles are responsible for much of the warming and cooling observed in the last hundred years. Another scientist, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, agrees, saying that while man’s activity does generate some warming,

‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’

Then there is Professor William Gray: ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural. Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

I do not claim to know in what direction the climate is headed, or exactly what combination of factors causes it. But it is more and more clear every day that the notion that catastrophic global warming caused by man is “settled science” is a lie deliberately concocted for the purpose of foisting an extremist economic agenda upon the world.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

New smoking gun on climate data fraud!

Posted by sanityinjection on December 18, 2009

There has been much debate over the significance of the leaked emails in what is now being called “Climategate”. How you perceive those emails seems to correlate with what you already thought about global warming. If you’re a believer, you probably think the emails have been taken out of context or misunderstood; if you’re a skeptic like me, you probably think they are proof of a conspiracy to mislead the world.

Now, however, new evidence has come to light. The Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis is reporting that climate researchers at the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK deliberately cherry-picked incomplete climate data from Russian monitoring stations that would support the anthropogenic global warming theory, and ignored data from over 40% of the country that contradicted the theory. This is signifcant because Russia occupies some 12.5% of the world’s landmass and therefore its data would have a very large effect in calculating world climate change.

Of course, anything called the “Institute of Economic Analysis” is likely to have an anti-warming bias to begin with. But the claims being made here are very specific and should be able to be confirmed. They are further supported by one of the leaked Climategate emails which implies that Phil Jones deliberately tried to suppress the publication of two papers  echoing the IEA’s allegations.

As I pointed out yesterday, there are plenty of good reasons to move away from fossil fuels that have nothing to do with global warming. But this is a new piece of evidence to support the charge that the world is being deliberately and falsely railroaded into taking action to solve a problem that does not exist, for ulterior motivations that have nothing to do with climate science at all.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

After Copenhagen: Climate action we can agree on

Posted by sanityinjection on December 17, 2009

In the wake of what is shaping up to be the spectacular failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change, it may be that this presents an opportunity for a new look at the issue. I refer you to this piece by Bjorn Lomborg in the WSJ arguing that the current strategy being demanded by the global warming hysteria lobby – stringent worldwide emissions restrictions – fails not only because it is not achievable, but because even if it were achievable it would fail to benefit the people of the world’s underdeveloped countries. Because of poverty and disease, many people in these countries will not live long enough to suffer from rampant global warming. Emissions reductions, Lomborg points out, are incredibly costly and yet relatively ineffective in reducing global temperatures. For a fraction of the cost we could be wiping out malaria, for example, and save many more lives.

The irony of the global warming hysteria industry is that they have actually eroded support for moving away from fossil fuels by blotting out everything else and insisting on making global warming the defining issue. In fact, there are plenty of good reasons to support reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and expanding our use of alternative and renewable energy, while conserving energy through hyper-efficient “green” technology. You don’t have to be a faithful worshipper at the Church of ManBearPig, er, I mean man-made global warming, to support these things. Lomborg points out that even a major increase in funding for these initiatives would be vastly cheaper than what is being discussed in Copenhagen:

“Specifically, we should radically increase spending on R&D for green energy—to 0.2% of global GDP, or $100 billion. That’s 50 times more than the world spends now—but still twice as cheap as Kyoto. Not only would this be both affordable and politically achievable, but it would also have a real chance of working.”

Even the Obama Administration is taking a break from cheerleading for Al Gore to propose tax breaks for clean energy technologies – which in addition to helping the environment, also benefits the economy, unlike Copenhagen-style emissions restrictions which hurt the economy. To use a metaphor that carbon-haters can understand – the difference between promoting clean energy and mandating emissions caps is like the difference between walking and driving. Walking may be slower but it’s reliable, healthy and doesn’t cause collateral damage. Driving will get you where you want to go in a hurry, but at what cost?

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by sanityinjection on December 7, 2009

hy-poc-ri-sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi [hi-pok-ruh-see]

–noun, plural -sies.


 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2.  The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. (Thanks to

 And so we have the theme for the international climate summit taking place this week in the Danish city of Copenhagen. You may recall that this is supposed to be the moment when all the world’s countries agree to abide by severe restrictions on carbon emissions in order to save the world from its complete and imminent destruction at the hands of ManBearPig, er, I mean global warming. Of course, anyone who has been following the news leading up to the conference knows that major nations have already refused to do anything of the kind, so much like its infamous predecessor, the Kyoto treaty, the Copenhagen conference has failed even before it began.

Nevertheless, you might think the event might at least have some propaganda value in showing all the world’s leaders being green and earth-friendly for a week. Right? Wrong. Consider the following:

  • “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand. We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden…We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars.” – Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company


  • The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers…According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.” – Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph


  • “That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world’s smaller countries in an entire year — combined.” – Charles Hurt, New York Post 

The great irony of Copenhagen is that any agreement (most likely, an “interim statement” full of sound and fury and signifying nothing) could be achieved through the modern technology of teleconferencing, or simply handled through the UN in New York where all nations are already represented. Either way the carbon footprint would be exponentially lower. But surely, the value of having climate activists, world leaders, and self-righteous celebrities all coming together to backslap each other in front of the cameras justifies generating enough carbon to sink an island nation – doesn’t it?

And therein lies the point. While we are being told that everyone is going to have to make changes in order to fight global warming, the truth is that it will only be us normal folk who will actually have to sacrifice anything, while our wealthy celebrity betters continue to jetset around the world drumming up “publicity for the cause”. Their true creed is not that all emissions must be lowered, but rather that they get to decide who is worthy of permission to emit. And by their criteria, celebrity TV appearances are much more worthy than say, jobs for working families or being able to commute to those jobs.

Thus, I return you to the definition at the beginning of this post.

Posted in Current Events, Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Prophet Al Gore stands to profit from global warming hysteria

Posted by sanityinjection on November 5, 2009

I have argued many times here that the media deliberately hides the profit motive of many in the global warming hysteria industry whose jobs, government grants, or investments are financially dependent on scaring people into going green. Thus, I view it as highly significant that the New York Times – of all publications, the most rigidly supportive of the global warming agenda – has run a piece detailing the ways in which global warming prophet Al Gore stands to profit from his efforts to panic the American people into drastic action on carbon emissions.

I won’t repeat all the details here, but suffice it to say, Gore has invested heavily in businesses that would benefit from the regulatory and legislative reforms he is pushing. When questioned on the matter, Gore usually responds with anger and annoyance that his motives should be called into question.

In fairness to Gore, I do believe he is telling the truth when he says that his advocacy for action on climate change is not primarily motivated by financial gain. Gore is a fanatic, and money is not what motivates fanatics. I believe that Gore sees this issue as the centerpiece of his legacy as a public figure – he wants to be remembered forever as the man who saved the world from global warming, and that means much more to him than money.

I also agree with Gore’s insistence that he has a right to invest in anything he wants just like anybody else. What I don’t agree with, though, is that Gore has never registered as a lobbyist despite the fact that he is arguably the most visible lobbyist in America. Nor does Gore believe that he has any obligation to disclose his financial interests before telling us all about our moral duty to save the planet. These things create the appearance of impropriety, and Gore as a longtime public servant should know that the appearance of impropriety is sometimes almost as bad as actual impropriety.

I commend the New York Times for its rare decision to train its magnifying glass on one of its own sacred cows for a change. Who knows, maybe someday they will even print an objective analysis of the Obamessiah?

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There is no environmental “point of no return”.

Posted by sanityinjection on October 26, 2009

Amid all the discussion about climate change, one point that is made frequently by the global warming hysteria lobby is this: The earth will soon reach a “tipping point” or “point of no return”, at which time the amount of damage that has been done by man to the earth’s ability to self-regulate its climate will be beyond the possibility of repair and our planet will be irrevocably doomed.

That’s a pretty effective argument in favor of taking hasty action without thinking it through, because there’s no time. (You may recall a similar argument being used when the economic stimulus package was rammed through Congress.) This is an emergency, so just do what we tell you and don’t think, we are told.

 But in fact, if you *do* stop and think, the argument makes little sense. We are being asked to simultaneously believe that 1) Man is so powerful a force for change that we can easily overwhelm ecological systems that ran for billions of years before we arrived, and 2) Man is not powerful enough a force that we can reverse the effects that we ourselves supposedly have caused.

It is in this context that I offer you the inspiring story of the resurrection of the Aral Sea. For those not well versed in geography, the Aral Sea was at one time the fourth-largest inland sea in the world, located smack in the middle of Central Asia. However, the Soviets diverted the waters that fed the sea for irrigation, creating a man-made desert and destroying the area which used to depend on fishing.

In recent years, however, part of the Sea is coming back and with it the fishing industry, thanks to a dedicated program of environmental reconstruction including water diversion. There is still a long way to go, since not all of the Sea’s neighbors are cooperating. But the instructive point is that the rate at which the damage is being reversed is faster than the rate at which it was caused. In just three years the total fish catch has risen from 52 tons to 2,000 tons!

Al Gore’s crowd will object that the example isn’t valid because the Sea never disappeared completely (only about 90% of it vanished), so it wasn’t necessary to start from scratch. True – but our climate isn’t 90% destroyed, either. They will also complain that the Aral Sea project is much too small to provide relevant lessons for global climate change. But in fact, the AP article explains how both the death of the Sea and its rebirth have had a significant effect on the local climate. And by normal standards, it’s not small – we are talking about an original sea area the size of Ireland and a surrounding climate zone bigger than that.

What I take from this is that even *if* anthropogenic causes are exacerbating global warming to a degree that will ultimately be problematic – and so far the evidence suggests otherwise – even then, the suggestion that we must hurry up and act NOW without calculating the potential impact of our actions is not supported by the actual experience we have with environmental restoration and climate change. You wouldn’t sign a contract without having read it, but they would have our legislators sign environmental legislation without undertsanding what it will do either environmentally or economically.

Ultimately, it’s independent thought, and not runaway global warming, that the hysteria lobby fears most.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Signs of sanity on climate change

Posted by sanityinjection on October 13, 2009

Dribs and drabs of good news have been cropping up on the climate change front, beginning with Australia’s rejection of cap-and-trade, and the back-burnering of similar legislation here int he US in favor of the health care bill.

Now even one of the leading drum-beaters on global warming, the BBC, is acknowledging that there is an actual debate within the scientific community on the subject. While that seems obvious to us, it represents a significant concession from their previous attitude that only crackpots and oil industry shills could be unbelievers.

The article, titled “What happened to global warming?’, states flatly that “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.”

Of course, they are not ready to capitulate altogether. The article presents conflicting opinions from scientists, some who say that we are due for a cooling period of 10-30 years and some who say global warming will resume next year. It concludes that “It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” In short, it’s the kind of reasonable, balanced and fair article the BBC should have been presenting on the topic all along.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

No such thing as “settled science”

Posted by sanityinjection on September 9, 2009

How often have you heard the phrases “settled science” or “scientific fact”? They come up a lot in reference to issues like climate change, evolution, and abortion. Always the intention is to show that the currently prevailing scientific theory is correct beyond any doubt, and that anyone who suggests a contrary idea must be a crackpot.

This is contrary to the very nature of science. The success of science as a way of explaining the world around us is precisely due to science’s ability to revise theories in accordance with new evidence. Just as Einstein’s relativity replaced Newtonian physics, new discoveries continue to challenge our existing theories about life, the universe, and everything. Those who arrogantly insist on the infallibility of any scientific theory such as global warming or evolution are doomed to ultimate embarrassment when they turn out to be wrong.

A wonderful example of this comes to us from the science page of the Independent. Hominid skulls found in the Georgian village of Dmanisi are the oldest ever found outside of Africa, and they are challenging the long-held view that humans must have arisen in Africa and spread from there to Eurasia and other continents. This theory was, until recently, virtually universally accepted as fact. To suggest that one of the stages of human development (Homo erectus) evolved in Eurasia, as these fossils seem to suggest, would have been regarded as batty: 

“The question is whether Homo erectus originated in Africa or Eurasia, and if in Eurasia, did we have vice-versa migration? This idea looked very stupid a few years ago, but today it seems not so stupid.”

Ultimately, it may or may not be shown that human ancestors went “back to Africa”. It has little impact for the average person today either way. The point though, is that the out-of-Africa theory is far older, more venerable, and had more evidence behind it than the theory of global warming does. If the former can be called into question by new evidence, the latter certainly can. So the next time that someone tells you global warming is “settled science”, feel free to treat the comment with the disdain it deserves.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Best way to fight global warming? Don’t get pregnant.

Posted by sanityinjection on September 9, 2009

A new study from the London School of Economics shows that avoiding unwanted pregnancies is a more effective and economical way to fight global warming than various carbon reduction schemes:

“It’s always been obviously [sic] that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”

Using UN estimates that 40% of all pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, the LSE further estimated that effective family planning would reduce those by about 72%.  The result would be a carbon emissions decrease at a cost of £4/ton ($6.60/ton) versus £19/ton ($31.35/ton) to achieve the same decrease with low-carbon technologies.

Now if global warming is really the catastrophic threat to the earth that Al Gore and his ilk claim, shouldn’t they be pushing for expanded use of contraception and mandatory Chinese-style “one-child” policies? Well, they are already pro-abortion, so I guess they’ve got it covered.

Incidentally, reducing the population would also help combat killer diseases and starvation. It makes good environmental sense just about any way you slice it. But you won’t hear too many “green” advocates promoting it. (There actually are a few who do but they tend to be dismissed as radicals.) Why? Because it’s unpopular to tell voters how many kids they’re allowed to have, especially if they’re Catholic. And also because the Left is only interested in sacrifice if it hurts the corporations they hate so much. Since you can’t blame big business for people having babies, they’re not interested. It’s much more fun to blame everything on the oil companies and consumer capitalism.

I am not seriously suggesting that the US or any developed country embark on a mandatory population control program. But then again, I also don’t think the sky is falling.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »