Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of His Nobel Prize

This article pulls no punches and leaves no question as to what is being said.

Basically, it is a call for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize which was largely based on politics and junk science. But, the author actually goes further and recommends an investigation into Gore's actions and influence peddling.

From the article:

With recent events such as the blizzards and record cold weather taking place not only in the U.S. but the world, the admittance by Phil Jones, a climate scientist, that the world has been in a cooling trend for over the past ten years, and no concrete scientific evidence, only computer generated models of future climate scenarios to prove it by, the time has come to strip Albert Arnold Gore of his Nobel Prize on the grounds that it was awarded to a man who knew nothing at all about anything remotely related to climate and weather and had his own financial gains in mind rather than the good of the world when he accepted it.

It gets even better:

Al Gore is a hypocrite to his own idealism when it comes to his lifestyle of using more energy resources than perhaps anyone in the world. If he were sincere about his own cause, this fact would not be an issue as he would see to it that he lived within the means of his own Global Warming Doctrine of saving as much energy as possible. ... If anything Gore should be sued by every business entity affected by his flawed theory and brought up on charges of fraud and conspiracy for such lies. ... With the prospect of making billions from investments in green energy, Al Gore and his so-called scientists and researchers, which amount to a group of business individuals with similar investment goals, continue to lie to the public in hopes that some form of legislation will be enacted to further their cause of acquiring billions of dollars from a duped public. ... Such GW legislation would have dire consequences for both citizens and businesses here in the U.S. as we are in the worst economic shape since the Great Depression. ... This country simply cannot afford any more taxes, higher utility bills, and overall cost of living rise associated with the false claims of Global Warming. If anyone thinks this country could get along with a permanent unemployment rate of 45%, everything costing three times as much as it does now, lower wages and virtually no industry, you're out of your mind. We are barely able to keep the wolf from blowing the house down now as it is.

And the parting shot:

These individuals such as Al Gore and his band of investors have the devastation of the American way of life in mind and their own financial gains are top priority.

And therein lies the truth about all the lead activists who make bogus claims about Global Warming. It's all about how much money they can make by defrauding the public.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of Nobel Prize
Tony Elliot
Cypress Times
March 4, 2010

American Chemical Society Revolts Against Their Editor-In-Chief

Hat tip to Watts Up With That? for this one. It looks like the idea of "concensus" that has been touted by the global warming alarmists isn't as solid as they thought.

When Chemical and Engineering News editor-in-chief Rudy Baum wrote an editorial in which he claimed the "concensus views" were "increasingly difficult to challenge" other member of the American Chemical Society had a very negative reaction to it.

Dozens of letter were published on July 27, 2009 opposing Baum's views with some calling for his resignation and replacement.

Here are some of the comments:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote. Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.” ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!” ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?” Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.” Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: “I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.” William Tolley: “I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.” William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.” ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.] Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an “alarmist screed.” “Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

Not only did Baum alienate his own by deigning to speak for them, he also quoted from discredited sources:

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 ] Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

So much for concensus. Now, if we could only get people like Al Gore to listen to real scientists for once.

You can access trhe original blog entry on-line here:

American Chemical Society Members Revolting Against Their Editor For Pro AGW Views
Watts Up With That?
July 30, 2009

Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

They say there are two kinds of intelligence: Book smarts and Street smarts. Book smarts are good when you are trying to make a better living through self-improvment. Street smarts are essential when you want to live in the real world rather than some impossible-to-achieve fantasy world.

Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the perfect example of someone who has book smarts, but has almost no street smarts whatsoever.

As evidence, I present a letter that Dr. Hansen wrote to Barack Obama in which he tells Obama how to use the Global Warming Hoax as a means to implement a socialist policy of wealth redistribution.

This isn't a joke. He wants a "carbon tax" on petroleum products believeing that such will encourage Americans to "move beyond fossil fuels." Here are some excerpts from his letter:

The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels.

Any first year economics student will be able to tell you that the "appropriate effect" will be artificial price increases all across the board. In other words, anything that uses fossil fuels to get from the producer to the consumer will go up in price. Gas, oil, food, clothing, construction costs, infrastructure costs, public services costs, etc. Everyone will be paying higher prices.

How does Hansen think the public will respond?

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend.

First, if Hansen honestly believes that Washington would enact any kind of tax without creating bureaucratic positions to oversee such a tax, then he really has no street smarts at all.

Second, why does it have a maximum share for two children? Is this Hansen's way of telling people how many children they are allowed to have? A way of implementing dictatorial population control?

Third, another thing that Hansen doesn't realize is that the ultimate effect of his proposal would be to subsidize the American people for paying higher fuel prices. In other words, force higher prices by enacting a tax, and then redistributing the tax proceeds so that people can turn around and pay the higher prices. There is no net gain there at all and nothing gets done. Money simply passes from one set of hands to the other and there is absolutely no productive result to show for the transfer.

And another point that shows how out of touch Hansen is with reality is that he actually makes the claim that paying higher fuel prices (and all other inflationary costs that result from such higher prices) would stimulate the economy!

Here is what he has to say about that:

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead.

Yeah, let's look at that one for a minute. What would low and middle income people do when costs increase but their paychecks remain the same? They cut back. They cut back on food purchases. They cut back on anything that involves transporting the kids. They cut back on educational resources. They cut back on shopping. They cut back on their recreational activities. They cut back on whatever vacation trips they had planned. In short, they cut back on anything that is affected by the artificial price increase that this lunatic tax would cause.

Again, as any first year economics student will tell you, the net result of all these cut backs is to cause the economy to shrink, but Hansen has completely deluded himself into believing that it will cause the economy to grow!

I don't know of any rationally thinking person who would agree that any of this would be good for low and middle income people.

The Greenhouse Effect Theory and its Anthropogenic Global Warming fellow travelers have been shown to be hoaxes by legitimate scientists as we see average global temperatures drop and record snowfalls thorughout the world. Now we know why the hoax is being perpetuated. Socialists like James Hansen are trying to convince socialists like Barack Obama to use the hoax as a power play for themselves and further wreck our economies as well as the dreams of low and middle income Americans.

This carbon tax is easily one of the most idiotic fantasies ever to be floated in political circles.

Also, proposals like this are a prime example of why Michael Crichton was so firm in his commitment to keeping politics and science completely separate.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Hansen's Insane Proposal Published At Columbia University
Dr. James Hansen

And here is another blog entry regarding James Hansen's crackpot claims:

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again
84rules
November 17, 2008