Updates on Tripp and ICLEI Related Data
on July 27th, 2011 at 9:59 pmUpdate: Please click here for another nail in the coffin of 
the Global Warming Hoax. Here is the lead paragraph…
“NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.” Bon’t let facts get in the way of “settled science”, especially when so many global warming theorists depend on this fear mongering for a living. I’m sure the flat earth supporters acted in a similar fashion when their theory was disproven.
More coverage of the Tripp/Nutter debate here and a really positive article here. Tripp spent the day in Giles County today and continues to work hard to pull off the upset. He can really use your support.
The rationale for reducing carbon emissions by 30% in Roanoke County by 2020 is stopping Global Warming. We have posted a lot of information debunking this hoax. Here are two pieces of data you should find interesting. One is a fantastic document created by Virginia Scientist and Engineers for Energy and Environment. This is the best short explanation of the fallacies inherent in the global warming hoax. I suggest reviewing this document as it is brilliant. Global Warming White Paper
This is a recent letter to the editor from the Richmond Times Dispatch written by Dr. Charles Battig, also from Virginia Scientist and Engineers for Energy and Environment and leader of the group that lead the successful battle to eliminate ICLEI from Albemarle County. I thought this was well conceived and I wanted to share this:
Letters to the Editor
Why are lawyers arguing climate science?
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Shakespeare understood the importance of the legal profession when he had Dick “the butcher” suggest: “The first thing we do; let’s kill all the lawyers” in his Henry VI. Whatever Shakespeare’s intended connotation, it was framed in the context of his play. Others have used the phase to picture lawyers in a less than favorable light. To such critics, I point to the recent action of our most distinguished group of lawyers, our U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision that “the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens … a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snow pack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease.”
Four years later, these predictions have proved largely false. Persistent snow packs have prolonged the skiing season into early summer at some resorts. Hurricane activity remains at a multidecade low. Recent satellite data show a remarkable downward trend in sunspot activity, reminiscent of the associated “Little Ice Age” of the 1300-1850s. Current scientific concern is with solar activity, not innocent carbon footprints.
It is fortunate that our Supreme Court lawyers are here, in contravention to Shakespeare’s exhortation. Their June 20 decision in American Electric Power vs. Connecticut illustrates how valuable lawyers can be, especially when they demonstrate the ability to reconsider facts and change their minds. In this ruling, Justice Ginsburg is quoted: “The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.” In addition, the court referenced professor Freeman Dyson, a well-known critic of the hypothesis of manmade global warming.
One wonders why the June 22 “Virginia Offshore Wind Conference,” sponsored by the Sierra club, included so many law firms. Perhaps they have the legal skills to make the two-to-three-time cost disadvantage of offshore wind energy disappear.
Charles Battig,
President, Piedmont Chapter,
Virginia Scientists and Engineers for the Environment.
Charlottesville.
the Richmond Times-Dispatch © Copyright 2011 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General compan
I thought that the libertarian principle was that any action was ok as long as it didn’t cause harm to another citizen. Why in the world then would you tea party people condemn efforts to reduce emissions? The ozone level in Roanoke has been way above normal on several days this summer. As such, I don’t feel comfortable taking my six month old daughter for a walk on those days. Are we not harmed, then, or should I take my daughter outside, wait until she is physically harmed, then complain? I hope you will answer.
This is not about anything but the effort to reduce carbon emissions in relations to stopping global climate change. The point is simple. Human carbon emissions have no significant impact on the global warming. Thus, the efforts to reduce carbon emission, which necessarily MANDATE restrictive policies on land usage and zoning, are not only a waste of time, but an infringement on the basic rights to own and use our personal property that are guaranteed in the state constitution. So the mandates, that will come if the ICLEI people convince the county board to do so will cause harm to individuals. After you review the link imbedded in the article descriing the scientific fallacy that is global warming theory, lets talk some more.
Chip