UPPERWEATHER.COM _{-Meteorological Musings}

This means that if you want to defend your home against chariots, all you need to do is throw a few hundred caltrops in your yard. Cool huh? No more worrying about pesky chariot attacks.

Seriously, imagine how innovative this was for it's time. This would render a whole slew of different kinds of attacks useless. They have been used as recently as Operation United Shield in 1995.

These are genius, mostly due to simplicity. They are easy to deploy, as you just throw them out and they will always land with one spike facing up. They are cheap, as anyone can make one with a piece of wire. Just brilliant, they are!

Well, all of the global warming fanatics use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as if it were a caltrop. No matter how many times it is proven to be false, no matter how much the original authors point out that the science was politically skewed and the final result was not what they intended, it is still thrown out as if it still had one spike sticking up.

It is a nice trick. Marc Sheppard says it very well...

"We've all seen them present evidence of an undeniable upward cycle, then label anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics as "warming deniers" who rebuff the proof right before their eyes. This dishonest little dodge is an inverted Straw man argument as it blatantly misrepresents a position, proves its own distortion, and then concludes that the real position has been affirmed.

The upshot of this fraud is a population that largely believes skeptics doubt the warming trend itself, not its anthropogenic influence, and that thereby lies about the"debate." Moreover, this implied association blurs that distinction, leaving many with the very false yet very real impression that they have witnessed convincing evidence of both.

Pretty neat trick -- turning a skeptic questioning the impact of manmade greenhouse gases into a boogieman denying the planet is warming to imply all cynics are obviously wrong about both.

However, as with stage magic, logical illusions require audience receptivity preparation. Here, instilling an assumed connection is paramount."

Look at this horrific piece of journalism by abc.

Singer, an 84-year-old Princeton-trained physicist, is the grandfather of the global warming skeptics who dispute the established scientific consensus that global warming is real, that it is caused by the pollution humans are pumping into the atmosphere, and that it will be catastrophic if measures are not taken immediately.

Established scientific consensus? I wonder how many times they can say that, or some similar diatribe. The associated video starts listing all of the scientists that agree; IPCC, NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysics Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, AMS.

I don't know about some of those organizations but, I can talk about the AMS. I asked a co-worker of mine why he is still a member of an organization that has come out publicly supporting the IPCC's lies, and has congratulated them and Gore on their Nobel Prize? He said that he did not realize they had done that. I promptly urged him to cancel his membership. I am willing to bet that is the case with most member meteorologists. They sign up and pay yearly dues in order to get journal subscriptions, and put it on their resume. The whole time never bothering to look up what the actual website says.

It's as if the whole world believes that the IPCC was the be-all end-all. They are above political influence and above influence from the big nasty oil companies. I also hear over and over about how any denier must begetting money from the oil companies, while Global Warming activists are saints just wanting to save the Earth. If you really follow the money it is quite a different story. Here is an excerpt from a great paper by Lord Christopher Mockton via ICECAP

Compared with the tens of billions spent worldwide on pushing the climate scare, the mere millions spent on investigating the truth that there is no “climate crisis” are negligible, as the following analysis by the Marshall Institute demonstrates:

The study of climate change science and the policy ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise in the United States.

Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.

This support was significant for many of the receiving institutions. Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.

More than 2,000 separate climate change-related grants were distributed by federal departments and agencies in FY 2002, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available.

Federal support for R&D in the environmental sciences field has tripled in the past 20 years, rising from $1.2 billion in 1980 to $3.6 billion in 2002, according to data available from the National Science Foundation.

In 28 of the top-30 performing institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institution’s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.

The millions going to educate the public? Read about this poll in Canada.

Four of five Canadians say they understand what is causing global warming but a majority does not seem to know that scientific research blames greenhouse gas pollution from industrial facilities and other human activity for causing the problem, a poll has revealed.

So, if you think you know about Global Warming but you don't agree 100% with the IPCC then you are in a fog and need to be re-educated. Can you see all the caltrops hiding in the grass? IPCC is the only right answer.