A Song For Earth Day

In honor of Earth Day (hope you didn't forget to get your wife an eco-friendly gift like a box of dirt or a bag of mulch), my all-time favorite environmentalist song, which I first posted back in June of 2007:

Take a listen:


Here are the full lyrics, if you want to play it again and sing along:

Please don't melt our glaciers
Please don't kill us all
Please don't destroy our atmosphere
The sun will kill us all

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's true
Help

Bush is such an idiot (I know)
He won't sign the Kyoto Treaty
Why doesn't he care?
Why won't he help?

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's true
Help

Icebergs are falling into the ocean
The ozone layer is thinning
Make good choices
Don't use so many resources
Every single day
Don't drive your car as much
Find alternatives
Don't be careless
Recycle
Don't use so much electricity
Don't use styrofoam
Be friendly to the earth
It will be friendly back

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's real
Help

If that's not enough, I've got a fair amount of posts regarding global warming.

Climate Change

Do I sound more sophisticated and intelligent if I say "climate change" rather than "global warming?" I hope so. Because then I can mindlessly jump on the ice age bandwagon and still pretend that I'm smart.

RedOrbit carries a story entitled "Research Claims Earth Facing Ice Age:"

Scientists are now making an alarming claim that the earth is on the brink of entering another Ice Age that could last the next 100,000 years.

They believe a 12,000-year warming period is currently winding down.

They say ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age patterns, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Read the full story here.

So evidently this means that in the past 35 years, we've gone from the brink of an Ice Age (see this story from Time's June 24, 1974 issue), through the worst global warming in the history of the planet, to the brink of another Ice Age.

The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008

From Watts Up With That?:

• 2008 will be the hottest year in a century.
• You could potentially sail, kayak or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice . . . is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.
• Australia’s Cities Will Run Out of Drinking Water Due to Global Warming.
• Hurricane Effects Will Only Get Worse.
• Corals will become increasingly rare on reef systems.
• No More Skiing?

Read more about the predictions here.

Is Global Warming Dead?

From the United Kingdom's Telegraph:

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Read the full story.

I'll Proofread This When My Eyes Stop Bleeding

Who knows about TerraPass? I had heard of "carbon offsets" or "carbon credits" before, but had never encountered them before yesterday. That's when I came across the reality of this year and a half old announcement:

Big news, people: Expedia and TerraPass have partnered in a program to offer Flight TerraPasses to travelers when they buy plane tickets.

Although the travel industry has undertaken limited experiments with this kind of offering before, this is the first program of its size and scope to offer measured, verified greenhouse gas reductions to all travelers. Expedia will offer TerraPass to every U.S. traveler who buys a plane ticket through their web site.

This is an important development for the travel industry and for the fight against global warming. Air travel has exploded in popularity as the cost of plane tickets has dropped. But planes create a large and growing proportion of global warming pollution. For frequent flyers, plane travel creates more emissions than their cars.

Previously, there was not much travelers could do about their contribution to this problem. Now there is.

Whatever shall we do? Why, alleviate our guilt for destroying the earth by spending money, that's what. While purchasing tickets through Expedia, I saw that I could buy a "Flight TerraPass." Only $5.99 for 1,000 lbs of CO2! Or $29.99 for 5,000 lbs! And you get a "nifty co-branded decal" or "a magnificent co-branded luggage tag, made of durable, high-quality silicone." Basically, what you're doing (beyond buying a decal/luggage tag), is giving money to TerraPass to fund "carbon reduction projects."

Now I'm not one to want to destroy the earth at all costs. But I think a reality check is in order. If you want to contribute to "carbon reduction projects," including "clean energy," "farm power," and "landfill gas capture," go right ahead. But do you have to use a middle-man? I say use Google, find a local researcher/company doing something like this, contact them, and ask where you can send your check to help them out. The only benefit I see of buying a TerraPass is vanity, much like people who buy a Toyota Prius because "It makes a statement about me." The desire here isn't to help the environment, it's to be recognized as someone who helps the environment.

It's this kind of thinking that worries me about the upcoming presidential election. I worry that people will vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton so that they can tell their children/grandchildren someday that they voted for America's first black/woman president. I don't care if our next president is a purple hermaphrodite, as long as they aren't going to flush our country down the toilet. But I hope people will pay more attention to actual issues & experience/records, rather than so-called "identity-politics."

For instance, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation recently released a study "which provides cost estimates -- based on hard data -- for more than 450 of the major candidates’ proposals that would affect the federal budget." Some of the numbers may shock you. (Some might not.) Take a look at the net effect on federal spending of some of the candidates' proposals (for new/increased programs as well as cuts):

• Barack Obama: $287 billion increase ($105 billion for "economy, transportation, and infrastructure")
• Hillary Clinton: $218.2 billion increase ($113.6 billion for health care)
• John McCain: $6.9 billion increase
• Mike Huckabee: $54.2 billion increase ($50.1 billion increase in military spending)
• Mitt Romney: $19.5 billion increase ($40 billion increase in military spending)
• Rudy Giuliani: $1.4 billion decrease
• Ron Paul: $150.1 billion decrease

Now putting aside Paul's number, since he basically wants to cut all government spending (which isn't all bad), I'd like to see Giuliani's proposals. He seems to get it more than the others. What people need to remember is that the government doesn't really have any money - we pay for their programs as taxpayers. Check out the data from the report here.

An Inconvenient Book

I recently started reading Glenn Beck's new book, "An Inconvenient Book." In it, he shares "real solutions to the world's biggest problems," ranging from dating, marriage, and parenting; to radical Islam, America's oil dependence, and the UN; to tipping, movie rentals, and how to remember names. If you're familiar with Beck, from his radio and/or tv shows, his book comes across in a similar, funny yet informed fashion - "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" to use a tag line from his radio show.

The first chapter is on global warming, and I was amazed by some of the quotes included from various global warming extremists advocates:

• "Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canada's former environment minister
• "No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral benefits" to global warming policies. - Christine Stewart
• "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC (United Nations International Panel on Climate Control) report author, who made this statement in 1989. Schneider also wrote one of the reports that led to the global-cooling scare of the 1970s.
• "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." - Dave Forman, founder of Earth First!
• The Kyoto Protocol is "the first component of an authentic global governance." - Jacques Chirac, then president of France, 2000.
• "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." - Paul Ehrlich, current president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Standford. Ehrlich made this statement in 1969.
• "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." - Paul Ehrlich, 1970.
• "Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Paul Ehrlich, 1978.
• "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
• "Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." - George Monbiot, environmental author, 2006.
• "Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process. ... Capitalism is destroying the earth." - Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
• "Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." - Helen Caldicott
• "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Seriously, I'm all in favor of conserving energy and being good stewards of the Earth and our natural resources. But can we can the rhetoric already? I think you're going to find change much easier to make if you lead by example rather than by verbally attacking people and making senseless, outrageous claims.

In completely coincidental, unrelated stories:

• Low-energy bulbs 'could cause skin cancer'
• Energy-saving light bulbs blamed for migraines

And I saved this one for last:

Congress pulls the plug on incandescents:

The light-bulb design Thomas Edison created in 1879 has been relatively unchanged for more than a century, but its days are numbered.

The death sentence comes courtesy of the federal energy bill signed into law in December. A provision will make it unlawful for stores to sell incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012.

Customers will instead be asked to purchase compact fluorescent lights, which are more expensive but are said to last more than 10 times longer while using only a fraction of the wattage.

Are you kidding me? "Unlawful" to sell incandescent light bulbs? Not only are compact fluorescent bulbs more expensive, they are environmentally dangerous. I'm pretty sure the EPA doesn't have instructions for disposing of broken incandescent light bulbs, but the do have instructions for disposing of broken compact fluorescent bulbs, which contain mercury.

First, the EPA's general warning:

Humans use mercury in a variety of manufacturing processes and products such as thermometers and fluorescent lamps. If you improperly dispose of products with mercury in them, they may break and release mercury vapors which are harmful to human and ecological health.

• Dispose of used mercury-containing items properly.
• Clean up mercury spills properly and report them to the proper authorities when necessary.

You might want to write this next part down, because you'll need to have it handy by 2012, at least:

What Never to Do with a Mercury Spill

• Never use a vacuum cleaner to clean up mercury (but see the "What to Do if a Fluorescent Light Bulb Breaks" section below for more specific instructions about vacuuming broken fluorescent light bulbs). The vacuum will put mercury into the air and increase exposure. The vacuum appliance will be contaminated and have to be thrown away.

• Never use a broom to clean up mercury. It will break the mercury into smaller droplets and spread them.

• Never pour mercury down a drain. It may lodge in the plumbing and cause future problems during plumbing repairs. If discharged, it can cause pollution of the septic tank or sewage treatment plant.

• Never wash mercury-contaminated items in a washing machine. Mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

• Never walk around if your shoes might be contaminated with mercury. Contaminated clothing can also spread mercury around.

What to Do if a Fluorescent Light Bulb Breaks

(EPA is continually reviewing its clean-up and disposal recommendations for CFLs to ensure that the Agency presents the most up-to-date information for consumers and businesses.)

Fluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.

   1. Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.

   2. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.

   1. Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
      Note: Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.

   2. Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.

4. If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:

   1. First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.

   2. If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

Ah, yes. The magic of two sealed plastic bags.

Here's a good question & answer from Energy Star's FAQ about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury:

What precautions should I take when using CFLs in my home?
CFLs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Be careful when removing the bulb from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Always screw and unscrew the lamp by its base (not the glass), and never forcefully twist the CFL into a light socket. If a CFL breaks in your home, follow the clean-up recommendations below. Used CFLs should be disposed of properly (see below).

How do you unscrew a bulb by it's base?

"The Greatest Scam In History"

From John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, found in part here and in whole here.

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman

jcoleman@kusi.com

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Here are a couple more good sites related to the scam of global warming:

• John Coleman's weather blog (filled with links to various resources)
• FAQs and Myths about global warming

How Lame

This has got to be 3 of the dumbest minutes in the history of broadcast television:


Yeah, green! Let's conserve energy by lighting some candles, while we show on our huge plasma TV that Matt Lauer is lighting up the Arctic Circle in order to tell us how they're sending people all over the planet to report as part of their "Green is Universal" initiative. But I'm sure those lights in the Arctic Circle are powered by solar powered batteries. And I bet those three (Lauer, Al Roker, and Ann Curry) all rode their bikes to their destinations. Could they be any more disingenuous? If you want to be friendly to the environment, that's great. I'm all for conserving natural resources and taking care of the planet. But at least be consistent and sincere about it. This reeks of ratings and $$. I hope NBC bought some carbon credits to reduce their footprint during this initiative. (Yeah, no joke - want to help the environment? Instead of conserving natural resources yourself, just pay someone else to do it!)

RFK Jr.

In case you missed it (and I'm betting most of you did, since the ratings were rotten), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went off during a speech at the Live Earth concert at Giants Stadium on Saturday, July 7. Advertised as a non-political concert (or series of concerts) "to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis," Kennedy proved otherwise in his rant:

...And so I am going to tell you this, that the next time you see John Stossel or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity --- these Flat Earthers, these corporate toadies, lying to you, lying to the American public, and telling you that global warming doesn't exist --- you send an email to their advertisers and tell them that you are not going to buy their products anymore....

Kennedy referred to "these Flat Earthers" along with the "rotten policiticans" who may likewise question global warming, or at least man's effects on global warming, or even just possible solutions, as "traitors."

Last week, Thursday night, Glenn Beck had Kennedy on his CNN Headline News show to ask Kennedy what his sentence should be for being a traitor (taken from transcript):

KENNEDY: You asked me a question, what your sentence should be. Your sentence should be that you should have to read the IPCC report and from cover to cover. And I know you don`t have it. I don`t mean this with any particular disrespect, but I don`t believe that you have a long attention span.

BECK: I am trying to ask questions, sir, honest questions. And yet you call me a fascist for asking questions. You, sir -- and I know you probably, and I mean no disrespect -- probably have even a shorter attention span, because I'm only asking you to read the definition of fascist. What, sir, is a definition of fascist? In your world, someone who says, "Wait a minute, slow down, let`s just talk about this before we spend all kinds of money and raise all kinds of taxes, let`s just slow down, sir."

KENNEDY: Let me answer your question. You asked me what the definition of fascist is. The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as the domination of government by corporate power. You and John Stossel, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have made yourselves the primary spokesman for the domination of corporate power over American government, and that is...

A couple points of clarification here. There's a bit of history between Kennedy & Beck. Earlier this year, Kennedy referred to Beck as "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate."

The other point is the actual definition of fascism, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, which Kennedy misquoted:

• Kennedy's version: "the domination of government by corporate power."
• Actual AHD definition: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Hmmm, "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship"? Like calling people who question the human effects on global warming "traitors"? And I'm no political/government expert, but I think that "stringent socioeconomic controls" might keep "corporate power" from dominating the government.

My New Favorite Song

Take a listen:



Here are the full lyrics, if you want to play it again and sing along:

Please don't melt our glaciers
Please don't kill us all
Please don't destroy our atmosphere
The sun will kill us all

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's true
Help

Bush is such an idiot (I know)
He won't sign the Kyoto Treaty
Why doesn't he care?
Why won't he help?

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's true
Help

Icebergs are falling into the ocean
The ozone layer is thinning
Make good choices
Don't use so many resources
Every single day
Don't drive your car as much
Find alternatives
Don't be careless
Recycle
Don't use so much electricity
Don't use styrofoam
Be friendly to the earth
It will be friendly back

Global warming
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's not just a prediction anymore
It's real
Help

They've got a point: "The sun will kill us all." That's why Evil Conservative Industries has launched the following campaign:

(Click picture for larger image)

(A little clarification for the totally confused: the song is serious, and was written & performed by a band called Blübird, while the picture is sarcasm courtesy of EvilConservatives.com, a production of the Glenn Beck Program.)

The Truth?

I don't even know what to say about this:

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

Climate Of Fear

From the Glenn Beck show on CNN Headline News:

Exposed: A Climate of Fear

Who's responsible for global warming and what can be done to fix it? Why would someone be harassed just for raising questions? Glenn Beck takes on the media hype surrounding the global warming debate and asks whether some proposed solutions would do more harm than good.

Don't miss "Exposed: A Climate of Fear," a one-hour Glenn Beck special report, Wednesday at 6, 8, and 11 pm, Central time.

Global Warming?

If you've been paying any attention to any form of media over the past year or so, you've seen your fair share of coverage detailing global warming, how mankind has contributed to it, and how "we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced." (this from the official website for An Inconvenient Truth) From Al Gore's movie, which is now being shown in high school and college classrooms across the country (even in high school English classes - don't ask me why), to various TV shows, to cover stories in magazines including Sports Illustrated and my alma mater's alumni magazine, we're being bombarded with the "science" of global warming.

My biggest problem with this media storm is that it seems like this "science" is not up for further investigation. You've got the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen advocating, "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." Al Gore refuses to debate critics of his view - not even the existence of global warming, but the "fact" that it's a crisis. British climate scientists are demanding that the DVD version of The Great Global Warming Swindle (which can be seen here) be "heavily edited."

Add to that the fact that Time magazine featured a story in their June 24, 1974 issue titled "Another Ice Age?" According to the story:

...the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Among the "telltale signs" of global cooling, the article includes:

• Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F
• ....the area of the ice and snow cover [in the Northern Hemisphere] had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
• Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Why does it seem like global warming proponents are so adamant about silencing any opposing views, and refusing to let their "science" be further investigated? Tonight on his show, Glenn Beck spoke with the director of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin. Wednesday night, Beck will be airing a special entitled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" on the "other" side of global warming. Beck asked Durkin, "What should I expect after airing a documentary very similar to yours?" Durkin's response? "Oh, welcome to hell."

Beef, It's What's For Dinner

(random, obligatory link to recipes at www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com)

PETA is challenging Al Gore to be committed to the cause:

“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”

PETA points out:

• The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
• Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

Ice Age

30 years is a long time - or at least it can be. It's longer than I've been alive. It's as long as my older brother has been alive. But how long is it when thinking about history - and different ages/eras on the earth. Is it long enough to produce drastic changes in climate? Evidently so.

GlennBeck.com shares this story from a 1975 edition of Newsweek detailing research indicating Global Cooling. But we've all heard the rhetoric concerning Global Warming in recent years - with Al Gore believing it is a bigger threat than terrorism.

Maybe global warming is happening - but you wouldn't know it from the fall-like weather we've been having the past several weeks.