Column:
Copenhagen Cop15 conference overshadows global cooling
Published Dec. 4, 2009
As concerns about climate change and global warming increase, Copenhagen, Denmark, will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Nearly 200 nations will be represented for the 12-day meeting beginning Dec. 7, including two MU professors who are attending the conference as observers.
What's troublesome is the talks at this meeting will be about how to stop global warming, when in fact, what little global warming there was has already changed into global cooling.
Although the UN, agenda-set scientists and Al Gore are running around in a panic spewing out nonsense about how the earth is getting too hot, all the evidence tells us our planet is getting colder, and we are beginning a period of global cooling.
One would think the scientists and other experts researching the planet would want to put forth information that best serves earth and humanity.
Instead, they care more about being right and are covering up the truth.
Hackers recently dug up e-mails from global warming scientists, and the information in those e-mails is startling. These "experts" were scared to death because their research told them how wrong they are about global warming and they expressed their concerns about it to each other.
Instead of admitting scientific evidence proves the earth is cooling and they all were in panic mode for nothing, those e-mails were deleted, information tossed out and global cooling advocates threatened.
Scientists at the United Kingdom's Climate Research Unit confessed to throwing out most temperature information on which their claims of global warming are based. Instead of being able to fact-check their claims, we have no choice but to take their word.
If their claims were true, why would they hide their trails like this?
At conferences and other meetings of the minds, the few scientists standing up for the truth are summarily excluded by the environmentalist nut jobs who insist global warming is going to kill us all. These clowns refuse to shake hands with or even acknowledge researchers who don't subscribe to the global warming conspiracy, creating a scene reminiscent of middle school girls on the playground.
Some scientists have even been threatened — critics have been stalked via e-mail and have received threats of physical harm to them and their families.
If that wasn't enough, the Environmental Protection Agency has launched a massive operation to make sure scientific evidence they don't like is hidden and never sees the light of day.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute completed a study earlier this year, but the EPA quickly silenced the results and the study's author. According to internal messages released by the CEI, the EPA kept this research quiet which suggested the EPA's information was outdated and inaccurate because it was feeling pressure from who else but the Obama administration.
If you don't think there's anything fishy going on, also consider the CEI was finally able to release its report without the EPA on June 26, which is the exact day the cap-and-trade bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Although scientists use evidence to warn us the earth is cooling (Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of Mexico warns of what he calls a "mini ice age" in roughly a decade), fanatics are panicking about how their stance is crumbling and will do anything to stop it.
Eric Hobbs is the MU College Republicans vice chairman. He can be reached at emhn75@mail.mizzou.edu.
Comments (9)
3 p.m., Dec. 4, 2009
Marie said:
Oh dear. Now this is just embarrassing. The "global cooling" myth was debunked weeks ago when the numbers were presented by the AP to independent statisticians who summarily rejected the "cooling" hypothesis and confirmed that the globe is still warming (http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/10/26/global-cooling-is-rejected.html). (I heard a rumor that around the same time, Glenn Beck crossed "global cooling" off his list of "lies that can successfully be told to the American public.") As for "climategate," the scientific community has already responded to this would-be scandal and has calmly demonstrated that they have nothing to hide. Check out this letter sent today to Congress by a group of top U.S. scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/scientists-statement-on.pdf Or go to realclimate.org for a longer discussion on the topic. These are the facts: the globe is warming. To deal with this problem, the U.S. can cut carbon emissions and invest in clean energy sources. Doing so would not only create over 35,000 new jobs in Missouri alone (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/peri_report.pdf), but support economic revitalization across the country and improve our national security by cutting foreign oil imports. Let's not lose our heads in the midst of conspiracy theorist hysteria. We need the Senate to pass the clean energy bill, and we need Claire McCaskill's vote to get that done.
6:23 p.m., Dec. 4, 2009
Roberto Columski said:
In order to free the world from oil Magnates and wild untame nations, like the horse and the Zebra look the same but are not by example and get new technology off the books and into the consumers hands it is neaded to be globaly warm. It is a good idea to get these things going. Even if the earth turns into an ice cube. I see it by example, you give a lie so you can reap a safer world at lower cost.
11:57 a.m., Dec. 5, 2009
Scott A. Mandia said:
There is no global cooling. I discuss this in detail at: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_cooling.html In fact 2009 is likely to end up as one of the Top 5 or Top 10 warmest since 1850. I also have an opinion about ClimareGate that is different than yours but is backed up by real evidence. http://profmandia.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-group-hack.html
12:21 p.m., Dec. 5, 2009
Steve said:
Fan, Marie, and Roberto ... just keep bleating. Just keep pretending. The evidence has been in your face for a long time. Of course, when you are a political sheep, you just keep following your leader, and believing what you want to believe regardless of what evidence is out there to cast doubt on it. Just pretend you don't see the evidence, pretend the emails (which you didn't read) don't really show anything scandalous. Pretend the code (which you probably don't understand) don't manipulate the data without justification. Just keep bleating and following like a good sheep.
12:22 p.m., Dec. 5, 2009
D Garneau said:
September 5, 2009 Geneva, Switzerland presentation to (IPCC). Professor Mojib Latif of Germany one of the leading authors and respected climate modeler of the world, and a climate physicist of the Leibniz Instutite of Marine Sciences at the University of Keil, Germany says we are likely in a Global cooling cycle since 1999 (1994 if you consider statistical significance) and is expected to continue into 2019 or even 2029.
2:52 p.m., Dec. 6, 2009
Dan R said:
It is an embarrassment to this student newspaper that this column was allowed to be published. This smacks of the laziest opinion writing I've ever read. Honestly, when you hear of ice bergs the size of entire states breaking off from Greenland or Antarctica, what do you think? That doesn't alarm you?
5:03 a.m., Dec. 7, 2009
Duke Grad said:
Scott mandia: Concerning your website and NOAA data collected between 1998 and now, analysis of NOAA and UAB data indicates that the linear trend coefficient is somewhere near .0045 warming with an se of .0062 for the NOAA data for 1998-2007 or so, and the trend coefficient is -.005 (cooling) with an se of .014 for the UAB data for 1998-2007. The coefficient is not far from zero at the at the .01, .05, or even .75 level of significance. An argument for or against cooling could be made just as easily as that for a warming trend. We need more data.
8:34 a.m., Dec. 10, 2009
Scott A. Mandia said:
Duke Grad: You missed my point. One cannot pick 10-11 years to determine the trend. Try doing your trend analysis starting from 2009 and you get a much warmer rate because 2008 was such an outlier due to a strong La Nina and a weak sun. When one chooses a subset of 10 years, typically the "noise" is larger than the "signal". Here is a recent post by a stats wizard: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/ Also see: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/ BTW, 2009 is now likely to be one of the Top 5 warmest years since 1850.




7:39 a.m., Dec. 4, 2009
Fan said:
Are there any sources to back up your claims? I need some reading material. I just finished Glenn Beck's book. Btw, Glenn Beck is an amazing American. All scientists read the Communist Manifesto on a daily basis. -Beck for President