M4GW

Is Hollywood Trying To Tell Us Something?

2008-07-07T21:52:11Z

By Elmer Beuregard It seems like lately every movie coming out of Hollywood these days is about how bad mankind is for the planet. Even Pixar is getting in the act with "Wall-E" which is suppoded to be a kid's movie. I'm glad I grew up during the politically incorrect 60s, with the likes of Roy Rogers and John Wayne. Back then the message was "good verses evil" now its "we are evil just because we exist". Monday on MPR they were interviewing Werner Herzog about his movie "Encounters At the End of the World" and he said:

"Many of the scientists there maintain that our presence, the human presence on this planet, doesn't seem to be sustainable." He pauses and then says, "But it doesn't make me nervous either." When asked why not, Herzog said he doesn't think the dinosaurs were nervous that the time of the dinosaurs was over either.

Then they went to a commercial on how you can reduce your Carbon Footprint and I had to turn it off. Read Kyle Smith's Review

Imagine there's no warming …

2008-07-07T16:41:59Z

Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily It seems clear that the world's political and cultural and financial elite are determined to do whatever is necessary in their minds to lower the temperature of the planet. When you cut through all the climate-change hysteria, that's what is being proposed. Taxes will be raised, carbon-dioxide production will be punished, income will be redistributed, people will be told what they can do with their lives and what they cannot do, live-saving and life-enhancing development will be curtailed. And all of this coercion will be directed by those who know best – a global elite who collectively know less about science than the average American high school student in the 1950s.]]> I suspect most of them don't even believe their dire predictions about global warming. I'm quite certain they understand the riff-raff simply need a rationalization for how they are about to be exploited in ways that would have been shocking during the days of feudalism. But put all that aside for a moment. Let's pretend there really is irreversible global warming taking place because of man's activity on the planet. Let's further pretend the advocates of these radical policies to remake the world in their own image actually could reduce the world's temperatures. Would it be worth it? Would it be the right thing to do? Would it benefit mankind in any way? Would the result be worth trading off the last vestiges of freedom throughout the world? Surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else ask these fundamental questions. And that illustrates the utter absurdity of the global warming frenzy. These international oligarchs are selling the world's population a make-believe crisis to justify their globalist power grab without the slightest ability to have any impact on the planet's weather patterns and temperatures. But, again, let's imagine they could effectively regulate the weather. Would that be good? Would you trust these people to control the temperature of the world? Would you trust anyone other than God to do that? Yet that is precisely more of the hot air the global warming chorus is trying to sell us. It would place something as sacred as the world's climate in the hands of men – if indeed they could. What surprises me, a little, is that so many normal, average Americans would be willing to hand over that power to a clique of politicians and their shadowy, unaccountable, unelected puppeteers. Think about this. Would you really want your weather controlled or regulated – even in part – by men with whom you have little or no influence? The question is so preposterous I can't imagine anyone would answer it affirmatively. But that is one of the monstrous, totalitarian, Big Brother ideas you have to accept to jump on the climate-change bandwagon. There's more to think about, too, in this hypothetical scenario. If indeed men really could change the weather and control temperatures, why do we assume those changes and those controls would be positive? Lowering temperatures might be attractive if you live in the tropics. But I can't understand why so many Canadians, for instance, would think a colder climate would be beneficial. Again, if the high priests of global warming could actually make an impact on the weather through their draconian plans to steal our freedom and our prosperity, their goal of lowering temperatures would be, at best, a net plus for some and a net negative for others. It would almost certainly result in less food production, for example. Consider that as we begin to see food shortages and rationing around the globe due to much less significant central planning efforts already under way. To review and summarize, then, what we're left with, when it comes to the global warming agenda, is a fraudulent crisis cooked up to control and enslave the world's population under the guide of benevolent global socialism and an equally fraudulent solution to that crisis – one that would be a bad idea even if it could work, which it can't! Do I have this about right?

Makin’ Up Climate Data… From Junk!

2008-07-01T21:12:20Z

By Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation Volunteer, John Simmons Everyone has heard the term, “creating something from thin air.” Now there is a new term, “creating climate data from junk.” Last summer, volunteers from the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation completed surveys of the United States Historic Climate Network (USHCN) temperature stations in Maine that are used to measure Global Warming. Map of Maine with temperature stations by name and NCDC ID # The results of the station surveys were astonishing and reinforced results from the rest of the country; there is a huge quality problem with data used to support the current global warming theory. Over 50% of the 1221 USHCN stations have been surveyed, and 89% of those are improperly located. Additionally, a statistical analysis of the remaining stations shows them to be warmer, so the worst are yet to be surveyed. ]]> CRN 1 and 2 are acceptable, CRN 3, 4 and 5 are improperly sited. Courtesy Anthony Watts, surfacestations.org None of the stations in Maine were free of microclimate or urbanization biases. Woodland, Maine is a rural area of farms and trees but the temperature station is in the parking lot of the local paper mill. NCDC # 179891 NASA GISS # 425726080020 An important station for climate scientists is Acadia National Forrest. This station is one of NCDC’s rural and NASA’s zero lights stations which is located between a parking lot, buildings, trees and a roadway. NCDC # 170100 NASA GISS # 425726080010 Millinocket, Maine once had its temperature station in a parking lot until it was run over by a car The problem was fixed by attaching non-standard equipment to the roof of a metal building in the rear of the parking lot. NCDC # 175304 NASA GISS # 425726190050 The station at Orono, Maine is located on the roof of a 4 story university building near a, chimney and furnace exhaust, and above several window mounted air conditioners. USHCN # 176430 NASA GISS # 425726190030 Discussions were under way to include data from this Eastport temperature station into the USHCN record until KBSF volunteers pressured the NOAA. Courtesy of Anthony Watts, the arrows show the flow of air into the sensor that is 2 feet downwind of the hot air conditioning coils. Gardiner, Maine is located in the driveway of a local water facility. NCDC # 173046 NASA GISS # 425743920020 The Lewiston Maine temperature station is in the heart of a large urban heat island and violates every guideline for locating temperature stations. The non-standard equipment is the wrong height, on a slope, between buildings and trees, surrounded by pavement, a few meters from a parking lot, next to a body of water and close to a large air conditioning exhaust and barbecue. To make this station complete, the rain gage is located under a tree. NCDC # 174566 NASA GISS # 425743890010 Farmington, Presque Isle and Houlton stations all have problems that are not as obvious as the others. The Portland station is at the airport between runways where large passenger jets “run-up” their engines before take-off. One USHCN station that KBSF did not survey was station number 17714, Ripogenus Dam in Maine, a station that closed 13 years ago. The last original observers report filed was for the month of November, 1995. The last original observers report for Ripogenus Dam, November 1995 Despite being closed in 1995, USHCN data for this station is publicly available until 2006 at the CDIAC website. The plot below was taken directly from the CDIAC website and clearly sources the data to some of the most prominent climate scientists in the world. So how is that? The station closed in 1995 but the data continues until 2006? Did some of the worlds leading climate scientists create the data from thin air? Well, not exactly. Part of the USHCN data is created by a computer program called “filnet” which estimates missing values. According to the NOAA, filnet works by using a weighted average of values from neighboring stations. Filnet is applied after a homogeneity adjustment which is not designed to find many of these problems. Imagine that, the worlds leading climate scientists creating temperature data from surrounding stations which are biased by barbecues, bodies of water, wind blocks, jet engines, pavement, roof tops, air conditioner exhausts, inversion layers, non-standard equipment, urban heat islands, automobiles and chimneys. They didn’t create climate data from thin air; they created it from junk. The USHCN is a network of 1,221 temperature stations which are used to measure global warming in the US. The USHCN is considered to be the highest quality network of temperature stations in the world. NCDC is a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA GISS is managed by James Hansen Rules for locating temperature stations can be found here: http://www.weather.gov/om/coop/standard.htm Kristen's Website.

Stop Global Warming-Hold Your Breath Shirt

2008-07-01T17:46:50Z


	With Scientific Explanation on Back Ony $15.00 2-Color Front, 1-Color Back

Is the North Pole Melting? I Sure Hope Not!

2008-06-30T18:23:39Z

By Elmer Beauregard If you click on the above image it compares the North Pole Sea Ice last year on this day to today, and as you can see we still have a lot more ice now than last year at this time. I did a Google search on "North Pole Ice" and there are 2,609 stories all saying that the North Pole will be ice free by September, it might as well be ice free right now the way they're talking. But what if they're all wrong and Santa doesn't have to move in September, will all 2,609 columnists go back and print a retraction? I don't think so. I am going to go out on a limb and be the only blogger in the world that is predicting that the Noth Pole will still be there in September. In fact if it goes out I'll shave my head (and I'm one of those people that doesn't look good bald). While I'm at it, I might as well sell the RV and move to Costa Rica, where people don't have to heat their homes or plow their driveways. Because if all these people are right and the North Pole melts, it's over.]]> vegetation growing where it once couldn't is a good thing. With increased warming and CO2 plants are now starting to grow even at higher altitudes which I think is another positive sign, even thow thery're painting this as a bad thing too. They spin it by saying that when plants start growing in places where they once couldn't they are abandining their lower or more southern homes. But they're not, they are still growing where they always did even more abundantly but now they are growing in places where they never could and are expanding their habitat, isn't this a good thing? Plus, with the Northern Polar Ice cap gone think how easy it would be to ship goods around the world, and what about off shore drilling off the north coast of Alaska. When I say "its over" what I mean is our way of life, because if there is this much chatter about the possibility of the North Pole melting, just think what will happen if it actually melts. Then the waling and gnashing of teeth will really kick in and every little thing we do will be taxed to the max. The poor suckers like us that happen to live in a northern region will be taxed out of our homes and our jobs, and we will be forced to move south to trailer homes in Florida. So pray everyday that the North Pole doesn't melt and that God will continue to give us record cold temperatures to shut these people up.

The UN climate change numbers hoax

2008-06-30T17:58:50Z

By Tom Harris and John McLean - On Line Opinion It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.” But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.]]> Wrong. For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released. An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality. A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything. Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space - an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge. An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”. In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.” Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”. Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense. “The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.” That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

Nothing Would Be Green Without CO2 Shirts

2008-06-30T02:29:15Z


		Only $15.00 White On Green Shirt

A must-watch 5 minute video on the New light bulbs

2008-06-28T14:40:15Z

ANNOUNCING OUR NEW DVD!

2008-06-27T20:53:03Z

Do To Popluar Demand! Now you can get all of your favorite M4GW YouTube Videos on one Hi-Res DVD only $9.99 Just get a pop, kick back on the recliner and put her in DVD and watch it on your TV! Order Today!

Climate Expert: Kyoto Would Save Only One Polar Bear a Year

2008-06-26T14:17:01Z

By Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute Bjorn Lomborg explains greenhouse gas treaty would cost $180 billion annually, but do very little to help the mascot of global warming alarmism. Want to save the polar bear? According to one expert, don’t think you’re going to do it by making significant lifestyle changes in order to reduce your carbon footprint. In May, the Interior Department listed the polar on its threatened species list because of the risks of shrinking sea ice. But Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor at the Copenhagen Business School, told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on June 25 that the threat is exaggerated and wouldn’t go away even if every country in the world signed and followed the Kyoto Protocol.]]> “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming,” explained during the speech in Washington, D.C., how inefficient and ineffective it would be to try to improve the polar bear population via massively curbing greenhouse gas emissions. “The polar bear has become the icon of global warming and certainly [former Vice President] Al Gore was a part of doing that,” Lomborg said. “A lot of people think polar bears are threatened right now – actually that’s not the case.” According to Lomborg, global polar bear population was about 5,000 in 1960. Since then, the population has quadrupled. Now there are an estimated 22,000 polar bears. But, Lomborg warned the polar bear still eventually could be threatened by the effects of global warming. “My point is simply: if we actually care about the polar bear, why is that we are so intent on only discussing one option – that is cutting carbon emissions?” Lomborg said. “Nobody ever talks about what would be the effect of cutting carbon emissions. Well, let me show you – if everybody did the Kyoto Protocol all the way through the century, which is very, very far away, but if everybody actually did that, we’d save one polar bear every year.” Lomborg said he was all for saving that one polar bear a year, but questioned the costs. He estimated the worldwide annual cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be $180 billion. Kyoto is a treaty supported by Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He proposed a simpler solution: “It strikes me as odd, that in this conversation, nobody seems to mention the fact that every year, we shoot somewhere between 300 and 500 polar bear,” Lomborg said. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to first stop shooting the polar bear?” “Why is it we care about polar bears in the least effective way and the most costly way, rather than dealing with the issue where we would do a lot of good?” Lomborg added.

12 Reasons Why James Hansen Is Wrong

2008-06-24T13:16:11Z

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears. Here are 12 articles exposing his lies and exaggerations. 1) The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK) 2) Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 (LINK) 3) Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientists and new peer-reviewed studies. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) 4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK) & (LINK) 5) Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist’s Claims of Censorship (LINK) 6) Hansen Claims 1988 Hottest Day Testimony was result of being ‘lucky’ – ‘We were just lucky’ (LINK) 7) Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ (LINK) 8) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK) 9) Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK) 10) Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK) 11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK) 12) Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” (LINK)

NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global Warming Lies

2008-06-24T13:13:08Z

Fox News The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist. Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago. He returned to the topic Monday with a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., given to the Worldwatch Institute. "Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming." "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual," Hansen continues. "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." Entire Article

Let The Fear Mongering Begin

2008-06-20T15:38:28Z

Elmer Beaureguard OK, I'll admit it, it's been a rough spring, we've had a lot of rain and tornadoes, a little more than usual, but that won't stop the Global Warming fanatics from using the recent floods and tonadoes for their own purposes. I did a Google search for "Global Warming" in the news, and everybody is blaming Global Warming for the floods and Tornadoes. USA Today, The Associated Press, Science Daily, the New York Times even George Bush thinks this is the case. But wait a minute, if Global Warming is causing all this severe weather why is it happening this year, the coldest year in over a decade? Why isn't anybody actually looking at the data and saying maybe it's the cold weather causing these storms, maybe its the lack of Solar Activity that creates more storms. It just goes to show there is no science behind the Global Warming movement and its just a perfect way to tax and control us. We have a few storms a few floods and they can blame it on basic human activity, and create more taxes and raise oil prices. Which leads us to our slogan "Its Stupid To Politicize The Weather!"

Dems Want Control Over U.S. Oil Flow

2008-06-19T21:40:35Z

WorldNetDaily Hinchey joins Waters, says 'We should own refineries' The itch to control the U.S. oil industry is spreading among Democrats in Washington, with Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., adding his voice to a recent threat to nationalize the energy companies' assets. "We (the government) should own the refineries," Hinchey said today, according to a Fox News alert. "Then we can control how much gets out into the market." WND earlier reported when U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., during a grilling of oil executives by a panel of U.S. House members, threatened to nationalize the industry if executives were unsuccessful in bringing pump prices for gasoline down. A report by Fox News, captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com, showed Waters challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.]]> Hofmeister replied: "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down." The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump "will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies." Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …" The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts. "Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …" The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Fox reported today the latest statements from Hinchey came as Democrats responded to President Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. Democrats said a committee vote on an amendment to lift a ban on offshore drilling was cancelled so representatives could focus on a supplemental Iraq spending bill. Hinchey, one of the more ardent opponents of off-shore drilling, simply said Congress will do what is "in the best interest of the American people. Not major corporations."

Al Gore's House Uses More Energy After 'Going Green'

2008-06-19T14:16:24Z

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.” In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. ]]> In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul. Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. “Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.” The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.