Global Warming Update: Britain Faces Mini-Ice Age, Ice Cap Having Major Growth Spurt

Poor Al Gore, just when he was trying to become more relevant with a 24 hour global warming filibuster on his Current TV, more bad news about global warming is released.  Great Britain, which just went through two record cold winters is in store for some more.  Scientists are predicting that Britain may be facing a mini-ice age that may last for decades.

It's partly the fault of the La Nina weather pattern, and for those living here in the US,  La Nina is also linked to extreme winter weather in America, so people on both sides of the "pond" should be purchasing warm clothes before the season starts.

The real cause for this prediction is the Sun. It has been emitting few ultra violet rays (not that you would know by looking at Snooki).


The Ice Age prediction comes from Britain's Met Office. They indicate that nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.

Although a connection between La Nina and conditions in Europe is scientifically uncertain, ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month.

The British news is not the only climate forecast that will "bum-out" the former VP's second chakra, the news about the arctic ice cap may be just as depressing.

So far it has been very cold in the arctic this fall, in fact it has been coldest autumn the arctic has seen in over a decade.  Because of this cold the arctic has added a Manhattan-sized chunk of ice to the ice cap every 30 Seconds For The Last 30 Days (the data can be found at Real-Science by clicking here). For those of you who live in the mid-west part of the United States and were praying for water-front property, sadly you will have to move to a coast because the coast isn't coming to you.

As our President, the EPA and many other progressives work to slow down the economy with crippling regulations to reduce "greenhouse gasses," it seems that mother earth does not want to cooperate.  Its time for the global warming Hoaxers wake up and smell the snowstorm, their climate change theory does not work when you move away from computer models and look out the window.

Uh-Oh Now Global Warming Causes Robbery, Prostitution, and Drug Abuse

Once again, its time to add to the Official “Stupid Things Used To Fear Monger About Global Warming” List.  The new entry is armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse at least in Ghana. Since July 2009 global warming moonbats have blamed each of  the following on global warming, climate change or whatever they decided to call it these days:

Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States,The Arab Spring, extended severe allergy seasons, Lyme disease, malaria or dengue fever, trauma, depression, high blood pressure and heart disease,and increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK. migration of possibly rabid Vampire bats from Mexico.

According to an article on Modern Ghana.com called Climate Change and Social Impacts, global warming is causing all kinds of bad things. According to the article, global warming is ruining the farms in Ghana especially in the Ashaladja community.

The effects of climate change are increasingly threatening the sustainability of the environment. Evidently, it has provoked very serious and grievous social impacts. For instance, climate change effects have led to deepening unemployment. Ashaladja is a community in Ghana where agriculture which is the key source of livelihood of the inhabitants has been adversely affected the over 5,000 indigenes.

According to the article, climate change has caused floods ruining the Cassava, Yam, Cocoyam, and Plantain crops. Because of the ruined crops many youths have had nothing to do, and as the old saying goes, the idol brain is the devil's playground.

Thus the youth including young women have become jobless and are forced to engage in deviant behaviors such as armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse as means of survival.

Again, the influx of young people from the rural to the urban areas as an attempt to escape serious droughts has denied development in those rural areas. Indeed, if the able, talented, energetic and vibrant young people are hurriedly leaving for the city or urban centers, then how can development take place in those communities? This signal is posing a threat to the future of these communities thereby denying the possibility of eradicating poverty. The negative social impact of such development may not be quantified.

Holy Crap!  Prostitution and drugs, and Crime in Ghana just because of global warming. Will that move up to the Northern Hemisphere and the 48 states. After all, we Americans are exhaling CO2 and driving gas guzzlers. All Gore was right! We're all going to die, but who knew it would be from STDs, ODs and getting beaten by crooks . Unless of course this is just a little more global warming fear mongering.

Warming Scientists On Suicide Watch?-The Global Sea Level is Shrinking

One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water.  And boy oh boy, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now....just wait.

There is only one problem with this scenario,  Mother Nature isn't being cooperative.  The latest data shows sea level falling during the past year. Of course one year does not make a trend, but the data makes sense of you look at the past century of data.

It is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that.  Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. To "fudge" the data they didn't agree with, the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happening--decelerating.

Now, new data has been released from NASA comparing the summer of 2011 to that of 2010.

The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.

Climate scientist Josh Willis, who also works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, warned that this water will eventually return to the ocean, and the long-term trend of rising sea levels will continue.

But it will continue to slow down unless the insist on adding their little .3 millimeter fudge.

“What this show is the impact La Niña and El Niño can have on global rainfall,” he said in an interview, adding scientists need to get a better sense of ice sheet dynamics before they can offer a more precise estimate of future sea level rise. “We really have a lot left to understand before we can do better.”

I would agree with that, they have lots to understand, including whether man-made global warming is real or not. Another thing they need to understand is that computer  models are nice, but they are based on biased assumptions.  There is nothing like sticking your finger out the window (or using satellite data) and trying to determine what the real numbers are.

Then again they don't want to do that, because every time they look at the real numbers it proves their computer models wrong.

Uh-Oh Is Global Warming Causing Mosquitoes To Move To Florida?

Once again, its time to add to the Official “Stupid Things Used To Fear Monger About Global Warming” List.  The new entry is plants and animals are migrating to the north. Cluttering the northern slope of Alaska for example. But it's not just Alaska,  Many animal species are now living  north of where they used to. For example one type of mosquito has migrated to Florida (no its not a species of retired Jewish mosquitoes). So the migration of animals can no be added to the official list.

Since July 2009 global warming moonbats have blamed each of  the following on global warming, climate change or whatever they decided to call it these days:

Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States,The Arab Spring, extended severe allergy seasons, Lyme disease, malaria or dengue fever, trauma, depression, high blood pressure and heart disease,and increased threat of wars, violence,  military action against the UK and Vampire Bats

According to a new study led by conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas of the University of York (England), not only are animals moving north, but the fact that they are moving because of global warming is now an established scientific fact. Along with their northern expansion animals are moving to higher elevations to cool off.

Thomas, told the  Washington Post 

“This more or less puts to bed the issue of whether these shifts are related to climate change. There isn’t any obvious alternative explanation for why species should be moving poleward in studies around the world.”

Translating that from the scientific jargon, Thomas is saying

"since conservation is my specialty, and I can't think of any other explanation, I am going to blame the migration on global warming. There that settles it!

Thomas'  new analysis  used data from over 50 papers and included altitude data on 23 plant and animal groups and latitude data from 31 groups.

Despite expected variations in such shifts from species to species, the study revealed a clear trend: uphill migration, on average, was 36 feet per decade (11.0 meters)  and migration away from the equator was 10 miles (16.9 km) per decade. These rates of migration are 2 to 3 times grater than findings from the last major migration study, conducted in 2003, indicting a likely acceleration trend.

According to the report As temperatures rise, these species’ survival often depends upon moving to cooler locales, such as higher-up mountain slopes. This of course, brings the migrating species into contact with the already established (in that niche) species. This can result in co-existence (a new, stable ecological web), or a reshuffling of the web. Amongst similar species (such as moths and birds), the result is often increased competition over food sources and/or the up-slope-migrating species driving out the previously established one.

In some cases, such as with certain species of butterfly in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the pushed-out species has nowhere to move to, and its existence becomes imperiled. Another example of accelerating migration is the North American pika (a mountain-dwelling rodent) which has shown a ten-fold increase in its up-slope migration (per decade) just in the past 20 years or so.

What is not discernible, is if the study took into account the encroachment of human habitats on the animal Eco-systems or the natural increased heat from man's development of land, not global warming but for example, if you were to build a home in a desolate area and that home was heated, the area in the vicinity of that house would be warmer.  Now make that home a village, small city or megalopolis and imagine the increased heat.

As an example, the return of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes to Key West Florida in 2009 — after an absence of more than 75 years — has been blamed on warming-induced insect migration.

 An explanation just as viable as the one coming from the alarmists would be that baby-boomer mosquitoes all became 55 at approximately the same time and are slowly migrating to Miami were they can feast on old Jews who are feasting on early bird specials.

The migrating theory is typical of the climate change hoaxers.  They selected old research that didn't give them the answer they wanted, asked only the questions that would prove their hypothesis and "presto-chango" the science is settled.

 The problem is the rest of us have to pick up the pieces from their half-assed research.

But now comes evidence from the largest-scale analysis to date that such northward, migratory expansions and accelerating movements up-slope (i.e., to cooler/higher elevations) are largely attributable to warming and climate forcings.
The study, led by conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas of the University of York (England),   “puts to bed” the question of whether these shifts in flora and fauna ranges and altitudes are due to climate change. According to Thomas, as quoted in a recent Washington Post article (see link below), “There isn’t any obvious alternative explanation for why species should be moving poleward in studies around the world.”
The new meta-analysis incorporated data from over 50 papers and included altitude data on 23 plant and animal groups and latitude data (i.e., range shifts northward) from 31 groups. One of the more general findings of the study, which analyzed species migrations in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia, was that greater warming in any given region was strongly correlated to farther, northward migration (to cooler climes).

American Pika (Ochotona princeps) is migrating up-slope ten times faster than in did in the 1990's

Despite expected variations in such shifts from species to species, the study revealed a clear trend: uphill migration, on average, was 36 feet per decade (11.0 meters)  and migration away from the equator was 10 miles (16.9 km) per decade. These rates of migration are 2 to 3 times grater than findings from the last major migration study, conducted in 2003, indicting a likely acceleration trend.
While some plant and animal species thrive in warming temperatures (which can open new zones to colonize), many plant and animal species are adapted to ecological niches that fall within a relatively narrow temperature range. As temperatures rise, these species’ survival often depends upon moving to cooler locales, such as higher-up mountain slopes. This of course, brings the migrating species into contact with the already established (in that niche) species. This can result in co-existence (a new, stable ecological web), or a reshuffling of the web. Amongst similar species (such as moths and birds), the result is often increased competition over food sources and/or the up-slope-migrating species driving out the previously established one.
In some cases, such as with certain species of butterfly in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the pushed-out species has nowhere to move to, and its existence becomes imperiled. Another example of accelerating migration is the North American pika (a mountain-dwelling rodent) which has shown a ten-fold increase in its up-slope migration (per decade) just in the past 20 years or so.
The researchers also note the variation in migratory ranges between individual species  and suggest that multiple factors may be at work in these responses.
Quoting from the paper’s abstract:

“The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming [emphasis added] with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes. However, individual species vary greatly in their rates of change, suggesting that the range shift of each species depends on multiple internal species traits and external drivers of change. Rapid average shifts derive from a wide diversity of responses by individual species. “

The researchers also sought to determine how far a given species of plant or animal in a given region had to migrate in order to find the same or cooler temperature. Surprisingly, the average distance turned out to be  between 50 and 60 km to attain a 0.5° C cooler temp, which is considered quite fast considering that often these regions are populated by humans. More surprisingly, there was no difference in movement rate noted across taxonomic groups; plants and insects move equally fast, and birds and mammals move equally fast.

The Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus) is moving into warmer regions, a more flexible response to climate change.

Exceptions do exist; some bird species, like the Cirl bunting, actually have  migrated to warmer regions, proving that at least a few animal species are more flexible in their adaptive responses to changing climate conditions.
One other puzzling outcome of this meta-analysis was a slower late of migration up-slope than was anticipated. Since one need migrate a shorter distance up-slope in order to encounter cooler temperatures (about 100 meters for a 0.5° C  drop), it was theorized that higher elevation movements would occur faster. Their findings did not support this hypothesis. One explanation is that the given animal population is in fact moving laterally on the mountain face, possibly being squeezed by higher-up species and/or to achieve a more northerly-facing direction (which receives less sunlight).
Many biologist are concerned that some species will not be able to move (adapt) quickly enough, or simply run out of room to migrate to. The ultimate effects of this ecological reshuffling are unknown and still a mater of intense study.
And, there is an additional threat here to human health: the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control have issued warnings in the past that pathogen carrying insects (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria, dengue fever, etc.) will also expand their ranges in response to steady, global warming.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti feeding off a human host. Warming temperatures could mean that mosquito born diseases like malaria and dengue fever may become more common in more northerly regions.

As an example, the return of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes to Key West Florida in 2009 — after an absence of more than 75 years — has been blamed on warming-induced insect migration.
The study, Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming (Chen et al) was published in the August 19 edition of the journal Science.

Some source material for this post came from the Washington Post article: Plants and animals migrating upward as climate change by Brian Vastag, and, the Science Now article In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills by Sara Reardon.
Top photo: (Parnassian Butterfly) Heather Dwyer / UC Davis
Second photo: (American pika) Justin.Johnsen; CC – By -SA 3.0
Third photo: (Cirl b

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/135WO)

But now comes evidence from the largest-scale analysis to date that such northward, migratory expansions and accelerating movements up-slope (i.e., to cooler/higher elevations) are largely attributable to warming and climate forcings.
The study, led by conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas of the University of York (England),   “puts to bed” the question of whether these shifts in flora and fauna ranges and altitudes are due to climate change. According to Thomas, as quoted in a recent Washington Post article (see link below), “There isn’t any obvious alternative explanation for why species should be moving poleward in studies around the world.”
The new meta-analysis incorporated data from over 50 papers and included altitude data on 23 plant and animal groups and latitude data (i.e., range shifts northward) from 31 groups. One of the more general findings of the study, which analyzed species migrations in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia, was that greater warming in any given region was strongly correlated to farther, northward migration (to cooler climes).

American Pika (Ochotona princeps) is migrating up-slope ten times faster than in did in the 1990's

Despite expected variations in such shifts from species to species, the study revealed a clear trend: uphill migration, on average, was 36 feet per decade (11.0 meters)  and migration away from the equator was 10 miles (16.9 km) per decade. These rates of migration are 2 to 3 times grater than findings from the last major migration study, conducted in 2003, indicting a likely acceleration trend.
While some plant and animal species thrive in warming temperatures (which can open new zones to colonize), many plant and animal species are adapted to ecological niches that fall within a relatively narrow temperature range. As temperatures rise, these species’ survival often depends upon moving to cooler locales, such as higher-up mountain slopes. This of course, brings the migrating species into contact with the already established (in that niche) species. This can result in co-existence (a new, stable ecological web), or a reshuffling of the web. Amongst similar species (such as moths and birds), the result is often increased competition over food sources and/or the up-slope-migrating species driving out the previously established one.
In some cases, such as with certain species of butterfly in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the pushed-out species has nowhere to move to, and its existence becomes imperiled. Another example of accelerating migration is the North American pika (a mountain-dwelling rodent) which has shown a ten-fold increase in its up-slope migration (per decade) just in the past 20 years or so.
The researchers also note the variation in migratory ranges between individual species  and suggest that multiple factors may be at work in these responses.
Quoting from the paper’s abstract:

“The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming [emphasis added] with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes. However, individual species vary greatly in their rates of change, suggesting that the range shift of each species depends on multiple internal species traits and external drivers of change. Rapid average shifts derive from a wide diversity of responses by individual species. “

The researchers also sought to determine how far a given species of plant or animal in a given region had to migrate in order to find the same or cooler temperature. Surprisingly, the average distance turned out to be  between 50 and 60 km to attain a 0.5° C cooler temp, which is considered quite fast considering that often these regions are populated by humans. More surprisingly, there was no difference in movement rate noted across taxonomic groups; plants and insects move equally fast, and birds and mammals move equally fast.

The Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus) is moving into warmer regions, a more flexible response to climate change.

Exceptions do exist; some bird species, like the Cirl bunting, actually have  migrated to warmer regions, proving that at least a few animal species are more flexible in their adaptive responses to changing climate conditions.
One other puzzling outcome of this meta-analysis was a slower late of migration up-slope than was anticipated. Since one need migrate a shorter distance up-slope in order to encounter cooler temperatures (about 100 meters for a 0.5° C  drop), it was theorized that higher elevation movements would occur faster. Their findings did not support this hypothesis. One explanation is that the given animal population is in fact moving laterally on the mountain face, possibly being squeezed by higher-up species and/or to achieve a more northerly-facing direction (which receives less sunlight).
Many biologist are concerned that some species will not be able to move (adapt) quickly enough, or simply run out of room to migrate to. The ultimate effects of this ecological reshuffling are unknown and still a mater of intense study.
And, there is an additional threat here to human health: the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control have issued warnings in the past that pathogen carrying insects (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria, dengue fever, etc.) will also expand their ranges in response to steady, global warming.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti feeding off a human host. Warming temperatures could mean that mosquito born diseases like malaria and dengue fever may become more common in more northerly regions.

As an example, the return of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes to Key West Florida in 2009 — after an absence of more than 75 years — has been blamed on warming-induced insect migration.
The study, Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming (Chen et al) was published in the August 19 edition of the journal Science.

Some source material for this post came from the Washington Post article: Plants and animals migrating upward as climate change by Brian Vastag, and, the Science Now article In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills by Sara Reardon.
Top photo: (Parnassian Butterfly) Heather Dwyer / UC Davis
Second photo: (American pika) Justin.Johnsen; CC – By -SA 3.0
Third photo: (Cirl b

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/135WO

All over the warming globe, plant and animal species are moving up…northward and to higher elevations, that is…in order to find cooler temperatures. Evidence from the largest-scale migration study ever conducted shows that this trend is accelerating.

The Clodius Parnassian butterfly is more common at the top of its elevation range in the California mountains than in the past. Such insects are known as 'harbinger' or 'indicator' species because thay are typically the first to respond to climate changes.

Previous studies of plant and animal migrations have offered indications that something — perhaps rising temperatures — was driving species northward and/or to higher altitudes. But these studies were isolated and doubts remained as to the true trigger of these movements and migrations.
But now comes evidence from the largest-scale analysis to date that such northward, migratory expansions and accelerating movements up-slope (i.e., to cooler/higher elevations) are largely attributable to warming and climate forcings.
The study, led by conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas of the University of York (England),   “puts to bed” the question of whether these shifts in flora and fauna ranges and altitudes are due to climate change. According to Thomas, as quoted in a recent Washington Post article (see link below), “There isn’t any obvious alternative explanation for why species should be moving poleward in studies around the world.”
The new meta-analysis incorporated data from over 50 papers and included altitude data on 23 plant and animal groups and latitude data (i.e., range shifts northward) from 31 groups. One of the more general findings of the study, which analyzed species migrations in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia, was that greater warming in any given region was strongly correlated to farther, northward migration (to cooler climes).

American Pika (Ochotona princeps) is migrating up-slope ten times faster than in did in the 1990's

Despite expected variations in such shifts from species to species, the study revealed a clear trend: uphill migration, on average, was 36 feet per decade (11.0 meters)  and migration away from the equator was 10 miles (16.9 km) per decade. These rates of migration are 2 to 3 times grater than findings from the last major migration study, conducted in 2003, indicting a likely acceleration trend.
While some plant and animal species thrive in warming temperatures (which can open new zones to colonize), many plant and animal species are adapted to ecological niches that fall within a relatively narrow temperature range. As temperatures rise, these species’ survival often depends upon moving to cooler locales, such as higher-up mountain slopes. This of course, brings the migrating species into contact with the already established (in that niche) species. This can result in co-existence (a new, stable ecological web), or a reshuffling of the web. Amongst similar species (such as moths and birds), the result is often increased competition over food sources and/or the up-slope-migrating species driving out the previously established one.
In some cases, such as with certain species of butterfly in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the pushed-out species has nowhere to move to, and its existence becomes imperiled. Another example of accelerating migration is the North American pika (a mountain-dwelling rodent) which has shown a ten-fold increase in its up-slope migration (per decade) just in the past 20 years or so.
The researchers also note the variation in migratory ranges between individual species  and suggest that multiple factors may be at work in these responses.
Quoting from the paper’s abstract:

“The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming [emphasis added] with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes. However, individual species vary greatly in their rates of change, suggesting that the range shift of each species depends on multiple internal species traits and external drivers of change. Rapid average shifts derive from a wide diversity of responses by individual species. “

The researchers also sought to determine how far a given species of plant or animal in a given region had to migrate in order to find the same or cooler temperature. Surprisingly, the average distance turned out to be  between 50 and 60 km to attain a 0.5° C cooler temp, which is considered quite fast considering that often these regions are populated by humans. More surprisingly, there was no difference in movement rate noted across taxonomic groups; plants and insects move equally fast, and birds and mammals move equally fast.

The Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus) is moving into warmer regions, a more flexible response to climate change.

Exceptions do exist; some bird species, like the Cirl bunting, actually have  migrated to warmer regions, proving that at least a few animal species are more flexible in their adaptive responses to changing climate conditions.
One other puzzling outcome of this meta-analysis was a slower late of migration up-slope than was anticipated. Since one need migrate a shorter distance up-slope in order to encounter cooler temperatures (about 100 meters for a 0.5° C  drop), it was theorized that higher elevation movements would occur faster. Their findings did not support this hypothesis. One explanation is that the given animal population is in fact moving laterally on the mountain face, possibly being squeezed by higher-up species and/or to achieve a more northerly-facing direction (which receives less sunlight).
Many biologist are concerned that some species will not be able to move (adapt) quickly enough, or simply run out of room to migrate to. The ultimate effects of this ecological reshuffling are unknown and still a mater of intense study.
And, there is an additional threat here to human health: the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control have issued warnings in the past that pathogen carrying insects (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria, dengue fever, etc.) will also expand their ranges in response to steady, global warming.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti feeding off a human host. Warming temperatures could mean that mosquito born diseases like malaria and dengue fever may become more common in more northerly regions.

As an example, the return of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes to Key West Florida in 2009 — after an absence of more than 75 years — has been blamed on warming-induced insect migration.
The study, Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming (Chen et al) was published in the August 19 edition of the journal Science.

Some source material for this post came from the Washington Post article: Plants and animals migrating upward as climate change by Brian Vastag, and, the Science Now article In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills by Sara Reardon.
Top photo: (Parnassian Butterfly) Heather Dwyer / UC Davis
Second photo: (American pika) Justin.Johnsen; CC – By -SA 3.0
Third photo: (Cirl bunting) Paco Gómez from Castellón, Spain; CC – By – SA 3.0

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/135WO)

All over the warming globe, plant and animal species are moving up…northward and to higher elevations, that is…in order to find cooler temperatures. Evidence from the largest-scale migration study ever conducted shows that this trend is accelerating.

The Clodius Parnassian butterfly is more common at the top of its elevation range in the California mountains than in the past. Such insects are known as 'harbinger' or 'indicator' species because thay are typically the first to respond to climate changes.

Previous studies of plant and animal migrations have offered indications that something — perhaps rising temperatures — was driving species northward and/or to higher altitudes. But these studies were isolated and doubts remained as to the true trigger of these movements and migrations.
But now comes evidence from the largest-scale analysis to date that such northward, migratory expansions and accelerating movements up-slope (i.e., to cooler/higher elevations) are largely attributable to warming and climate forcings.
The study, led by conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas of the University of York (England),   “puts to bed” the question of whether these shifts in flora and fauna ranges and altitudes are due to climate change. According to Thomas, as quoted in a recent Washington Post article (see link below), “There isn’t any obvious alternative explanation for why species should be moving poleward in studies around the world.”
The new meta-analysis incorporated data from over 50 papers and included altitude data on 23 plant and animal groups and latitude data (i.e., range shifts northward) from 31 groups. One of the more general findings of the study, which analyzed species migrations in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia, was that greater warming in any given region was strongly correlated to farther, northward migration (to cooler climes).

American Pika (Ochotona princeps) is migrating up-slope ten times faster than in did in the 1990's

Despite expected variations in such shifts from species to species, the study revealed a clear trend: uphill migration, on average, was 36 feet per decade (11.0 meters)  and migration away from the equator was 10 miles (16.9 km) per decade. These rates of migration are 2 to 3 times grater than findings from the last major migration study, conducted in 2003, indicting a likely acceleration trend.
While some plant and animal species thrive in warming temperatures (which can open new zones to colonize), many plant and animal species are adapted to ecological niches that fall within a relatively narrow temperature range. As temperatures rise, these species’ survival often depends upon moving to cooler locales, such as higher-up mountain slopes. This of course, brings the migrating species into contact with the already established (in that niche) species. This can result in co-existence (a new, stable ecological web), or a reshuffling of the web. Amongst similar species (such as moths and birds), the result is often increased competition over food sources and/or the up-slope-migrating species driving out the previously established one.
In some cases, such as with certain species of butterfly in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the pushed-out species has nowhere to move to, and its existence becomes imperiled. Another example of accelerating migration is the North American pika (a mountain-dwelling rodent) which has shown a ten-fold increase in its up-slope migration (per decade) just in the past 20 years or so.
The researchers also note the variation in migratory ranges between individual species  and suggest that multiple factors may be at work in these responses.
Quoting from the paper’s abstract:

“The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming [emphasis added] with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes. However, individual species vary greatly in their rates of change, suggesting that the range shift of each species depends on multiple internal species traits and external drivers of change. Rapid average shifts derive from a wide diversity of responses by individual species. “

The researchers also sought to determine how far a given species of plant or animal in a given region had to migrate in order to find the same or cooler temperature. Surprisingly, the average distance turned out to be  between 50 and 60 km to attain a 0.5° C cooler temp, which is considered quite fast considering that often these regions are populated by humans. More surprisingly, there was no difference in movement rate noted across taxonomic groups; plants and insects move equally fast, and birds and mammals move equally fast.

The Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus) is moving into warmer regions, a more flexible response to climate change.

Exceptions do exist; some bird species, like the Cirl bunting, actually have  migrated to warmer regions, proving that at least a few animal species are more flexible in their adaptive responses to changing climate conditions.
One other puzzling outcome of this meta-analysis was a slower late of migration up-slope than was anticipated. Since one need migrate a shorter distance up-slope in order to encounter cooler temperatures (about 100 meters for a 0.5° C  drop), it was theorized that higher elevation movements would occur faster. Their findings did not support this hypothesis. One explanation is that the given animal population is in fact moving laterally on the mountain face, possibly being squeezed by higher-up species and/or to achieve a more northerly-facing direction (which receives less sunlight).
Many biologist are concerned that some species will not be able to move (adapt) quickly enough, or simply run out of room to migrate to. The ultimate effects of this ecological reshuffling are unknown and still a mater of intense study.
And, there is an additional threat here to human health: the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control have issued warnings in the past that pathogen carrying insects (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria, dengue fever, etc.) will also expand their ranges in response to steady, global warming.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti feeding off a human host. Warming temperatures could mean that mosquito born diseases like malaria and dengue fever may become more common in more northerly regions.

As an example, the return of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes to Key West Florida in 2009 — after an absence of more than 75 years — has been blamed on warming-induced insect migration.
The study, Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming (Chen et al) was published in the August 19 edition of the journal Science.

Some source material for this post came from the Washington Post article: Plants and animals migrating upward as climate change by Brian Vastag, and, the Science Now article In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills by Sara Reardon.
Top photo: (Parnassian Butterfly) Heather Dwyer / UC Davis
Second photo: (American pika) Justin.Johnsen; CC – By -SA 3.0
Third photo: (Cirl bunting) Paco Gómez from Castellón, Spain; CC – By – SA 3.0

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/135WO)

The Inside Truth Behind "Journalistic Integrity"

A large chunk of my career (16 years) was spent in the world of advertising. I worked for various advertising agencies planning and negotiating and recommending the placement of media for many top advertisers.  Basically I spent money, but since it was other people's money I had to make sure the money was being spent in the right places and my clients were getting the best possible deal.  That "best possible deal" involved more than getting the best costs, but also getting the best editorial coverage.

Magazine editors and TV news people who talk about journalistic or editorial integrity always make me laugh. In most cases there is no such thing. One of my first projects in advertising was working for a pet food company. We negotiated with CNN to run pet care segments just to put adjacent to our advertising.  Years later working for a major toy advertiser, I negotiated with magazines to run stories on toys from said advertiser, though their readers expected a different editorial selection. When Bayer Aspirin started its campaign about aspirin and heart attacks, to get our ads, magazines ran stories about heart care to run opposite our advertising. News magazines such as Time and Newsweek would run special food sections just to accommodate my food advertisers, Forbes created an FYI section (which eventually became a stand-alone magazine) solely to be able to entice electronics advertisers.

Those giant Coke cups you see the American Idol judges with are simply another type of advertising paid for by Coke.  Product placement in movies and TV shows were a frequent strategy I also employed.  If you like game shows, well, sometimes the prizes used are actually paid placements by advertisers, even the famous "life time supply of Rice-a-roni."

It works the other way around also.  Trade publications are notorious for  reminding advertisers that the best way to receive positive press is to throw them a few ads. Clients of mine have run trade ads precisely for that reason.

And it still goes on, take a look at an entertainment magazine, count the movie ads from each movie studio and compare it to the coverage that studio's movies receive.  While I have never worked on a cosmetics or fashion account, I have sat next to people who have and seen them issue reports to major fashion magazines such as Vogue detailing the coverage their products have received and threatening to pull all advertising if that coverage wasn't increased. You better believe that the editors threw away "journalistic integrity" to maintain multi-million dollar accounts.

After leaving the ad agency side of the business I switched to the magazine side and was able to see the process from this other side. There is supposed to be a wall of separation between the advertising and editorial staff of the business, but that wall does not exist. For example, as marketing director for a magazine group, I would once a year take the projected ad schedule for the following year and sit down with the editor's to negotiate what kind of editorial we would need to make those advertisers happy the next year.  As publisher of a different magazine, I directed my marketing staff to write articles about advertisers and we would run them in the book next to their ads, with a little slug at the top saying advertisement (in the ad business it they are called advertorials). The trick was to make the advertorials look just like the regular articles in the magazine.

There are two reasons why this is important information in today's political world.

First, if the advertising sales part of a media company, even with its traditional strict separation from the editorial side, can influence the stories a magazine will publish, just imagine what the influence of a bias that originates from the editorial department.  Editors who toss off their "journalistic integrity" so a different department can make money, will easily toss it off to accommodate their own political bias.

The other reason behind this stories importance has to do with some of the criticism against conservative stances.  In many cases when a study is published which refutes a liberal stance, the liberal counter attack is never about the facts or the methodology of the study, its usually some big evil corporate group gave grants to the organization who commissioned the study.  Sometimes they even point to studies/articles in magazines that agree with the liberal stances as support for their position.

What they don't tell you is that those same magazines they used as support may be running advertising from sponsors who are demanding those stories be published, just as I did as a media director -- or those same "evil corporations" who provided the grants for conservative study may be running advertising in the news sources that oppose the study.  In other words, the corporations that the progressives deem as evil, are actually supporting both sides of the argument.

I ran across this on the Heartland site in an article called, Media Matters Lies About The Heartland Institute — Again:

....Wrote Shauna Theel for Media Matters:

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”

Media Matters, and other critics of Heartland, have been beating the dead horse named ”they get money from ExxonMobil” for years. Indeed, it’s the same tired “argument” the left uses against any group that questions anthropogenic global warming. But consider this: You can’t read the science journal Nature without being bombarded by ads by from oil companies. Is Nature bought and paid for by “Big Oil”? Is Media Matters tracking gifts from wind and solar companies to environmental advocacy groups? Why not? (That’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.)

....Doesn’t journalistic ethics require that these facts be acknowledged whenever the charge of undue corporate influence is made? Of course, journalistic ethics and Media Matters aren’t exactly frequent dance partners.

Truth be told, journalist ethics is an oxymoron not just for media matters but for most of the sources we approach for information. Whether it is AARP articles supporting Obamacare because they stand to make millions of dollars from sales of its licensed insurance products with the bill's passage or Al Gore's potential billions from his "green" investments should people actually believe what he pushes in his movie An"Inconvenient Truth." The only thing you should trust implicitly is the advice given during each episode of the "X-Files" Trust No One and make your own decisions.

Will Al Gore Slam The Ice Caps for Not Disappearing?

A scare tactic of the global warming hoaxers is "man-made warming" will cause the polar ice caps to melt so drastically they will  pass some sort of "tipping point" and like my hair,  will never be able to regrow. Of course in my case it is nothing to worry about because I live at the coast, which according to the hoaxers, by the time the ice caps disappear, will be under water anyway. 

A new report detailed in the latest issue of the Journal of  Science, indicates that their probably isn't any "tipping point." They prove that as recently  as 6,000 years ago (that is recent in geologic time) polar ice caps were half the size they are today and have rebounded very nicely.

We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.

Danish researchers analysed ancient driftwood in north Greenland which they feel is an accurate way to measure  ancient ice loss. The team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.  Under the Global Warming hoax, that would have meant that the Ice Caps would have continued melting to the point that they would have dissipated forever (like wide ties and polyester leisure suits). Because the ice caps returned to full health the Danish scientists observe that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.

... a Danish team believes it has found an indirect method that gives a clear picture of the ice loss dating back 11,000 years.

Dr Svend Funder from the Natural History Museum of Denmark led several expeditions to inhospitable regions of Northern Greenland. On these frozen shores the Danish team noticed several pieces of ancient driftwood. They concluded that it could be an important method of unlocking the secrets of the ancient ice.

"Driftwood cannot float across the water, it has to be ferried across the ocean on ice, and this voyage takes several years, which means that driftwood is actually a signal of multi-year sea ice in the ocean and it is this ice that is at risk at the moment" said Dr Funder.

Carbon dating was used to determine the age of the wood. And figuring out its origins also yielded important information.

"It's so lovely that drift wood from Siberia is mainly larch and from North America is mainly spruce. So if we see there was more larch or spruce we can see that the wind system had changed and in some periods there was little spruce and in other periods there was lots," he said.

Wind delay? As well as the driftwood, the scientists mapped beach ridges for 500km (310 miles) along the coast. This proved that at one time the waves had reached the shore unhindered by the ice.

Dr Funder and his team say their data shows a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007.

But the researcher says that even with a loss of this size, the sea ice will not reach a point of no return.

"I think we can say that with the loss of 50% of the current ice, the tipping point wasn't reached."

The idea of an Arctic tipping point has been highlighted by many scientists in recent years. They have argued that when enough ice is lost it could cause a runaway effect with disastrous consequences.

There is no word whether the inventor of the internet and Global Warming Grand Poo-bah,  Al Gore will call for the arrests of the scientists of filed the study or the ice caps themselves.  After all, he stands to make billions of dollars out of the climate change hoax he will do his best to make sure this latest news will not spread. Ultimately we will not know until he returns from his latest Antarctic vacation.

Scientists Agree, Salon Is Making Fake Claims To Spread Climate Change Hoax

Whenever there is an unusual weather pattern, members of the Holy Church of Global Warming Moonbats start spreading new scare-tactics. Usually it sounds something like:

This planet is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Old Testament real wrath of God type stuff.  Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of Gilligan's Island Re-runs! Earthquakes, volcanoes, another Rocky Movie rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner living together... mass hysteria!

And just as common is the fact that scientists dispute their contention.  It happened when both Time and Newsweek blamed this spring's tornado activity on Global Warming (contradicting earlier claims by the Magazines which blamed tornadoes on Global Cooling) and it's happening now when Salon is blaming the extremely hot temperatures in the American West:

Arizona is burning. Texas, too. New Mexico is next. If you need a grim reminder that an already arid West is burning up and blowing away, here it is. As I write this, more than 700 square miles of Arizona and more than 4,300 square miles of Texas have been swept by monster wildfires. Consider those massive columns of acrid smoke drifting eastward as a kind of smoke signal warning us that a globally warming world is not a matter of some future worst-case scenario. It's happening right here, right now.

...Nonetheless, we have been experiencing a historic drought for about a decade in significant parts of the region. As topsoil dries out, microbial dynamics change and native plants either die or move uphill toward cooler temperatures and more moisture. Wildlife that depends on the seeds, nuts, leaves, shade, and shelter follows the plants -- if it can.

....Global warming, global weirding, climate change -- whatever you prefer to call it -- is not just happening in some distant, melting Arctic land out of a storybook. It is not just burning up far-away Russia. It's here now.

The seas have warmed, ice caps are melting, and the old reliable ocean currents and atmospheric jet streams are jumping their tracks. The harbingers of a warming planet and the abruptly shifting weather patterns that result vary across the American landscape. Along the vast Mississippi River drainage in the heartland of America, epic floods, like our wildfires in the West, are becoming more frequent. In the Gulf states, it's monster hurricanes and in the Midwest, swarms of killer tornadoes signal that things have changed. In the East it's those killer heat waves and record-breaking blizzards.

Gee, they left out the Giligan's Island runs and the New Rocky movie. Maybe its because what Salon is saying above is totally fraudulent.



Lets start with the western drought/hot weather claim. This is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says about it:

This comes hard on the heels of some of the worst droughts on record across the globe, from Texas to China.

While global warming is an obvious suspect, there's no evidence that it is to blame. Though climate change models predict extended droughts and periods of intense rainfall for the end of the 21st century, they don't explain the current droughts, says Martin Hoerling at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "A lot of these extreme conditions are natural variations of the climate. Extremes happen, heat waves happen, heavy rains happen," he says.

Drought across the southern US - and heavy rains across the north of the country - are a result of La Niña, says Michael Hayes, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. An extended holding pattern in the jet stream, the same type of "blocking event" that caused last summer's heat wave in Russia, is responsible for this year's European droughts, says Michael Blackburn of the University of Reading, UK. As for the apparent convergence of droughts worldwide, Mark Saunders of University College London says current conditions aren't that unusual

How about those horrible tornadoes this past spring? This claim is just as fraudulent, Fox News reported:

Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said warming trends do create more of the fuel that tornadoes require, such as moisture, but that they also deprive tornadoes of another essential ingredient: wind shear.

“We know we have a warming going on,” Carbin told Fox News in an interview Thursday, but added: “There really is no scientific consensus or connection [between global warming and tornadic activity]….Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.”

Asked if climate change should be “acquitted” in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: “I would say that is the right verdict, yes.” Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? “That’s correct,” Carbin replied.

According to Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University:

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase,"he said .

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

But he said it would be "a terrible mistake" to relate the up-tick to climate change.

Salon is also naming Global Warming as the reason many of us in the Northeastern US had to spend so much time shoveling snow during the past two winters. After last year's snow-filled winter the NOAA issued a report in March 2010 which said:

They [NOAA investigators] found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.....

....The CSI Team found abundant historical evidence of heavy mid-Atlantic snowstorms whenever an El Niño and a negative NAO acted in concert, further supporting their conclusion that the record-setting snowstorms were the result of natural causes. But could global warming have elevated the potency of this dynamic duo? Again, the CSI Team didn’t find a connection.

Some of you may be thinking "well that was last year," and you would be totally justified except for the fact that two weeks ago the NOAA said, just like last year, this year's snow has nothing to do with man.

I would never make the claim that I am a scientist, or a science expert of any kind, but I can read.  Based in that ability I would make the simple proposal to the people at Salon that,  before they make claims about global warming, climate change or whatever the moonbats are calling it this week, maybe they should try to gain proficiency at the reading thing.  Because if someone like me, who's science training consists of watching Mr. Wizard on a 19 inch black and white television 40 years ago can find scientific information which proves their claim to be nothing but hype and lies  they could do the same thing.  And while I appreciate the material (especially now that Anthony Weiner resigned) sending out false alarms to the public is usually not the best tactic for a self-described, "award-winning online news and entertainment Web site."

Newt's Support of Global Warming Goes WAY Beyond the Pelosi Commercial

Many conservatives point to the Newt Gingrich/Nancy Pelosi global warming commercial as a dent in the former speakers conservative credentials. In the (embedded below) Gingrich sits on a couch with Pelosi,  with the Capitol building as a background saying, that while they don't agree on many issues, "we do agree our country must take action to address climate change." The commercial was one in a series created and placed by Al Gore's Repower America Campaign.

If you cannot see video below click here




Newt makes no apologies for his support of the climate change myth, despite criticism from all over the right  including Rush Limbaugh, who argued on his radio show that the former Georgia congressman had been aiding the "enemy."

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Capitol Hill's most outspoken skeptic on global warming science, said he's keeping a close eye on the Republican candidates.

"Huckabee has been a little bit soft on the issue," he said. Of Gingrich, Inhofe noted, "He was on the stage with Nancy Pelosi at one time. I know he'd just assume people forget that, but at that point it appeared that side was going to win."

"I'd do a commercial with Al Gore," Newt said to Human Events last year, "My point is conservatives ought to be prepared to stand on the same stage and offer a conservative solution." Not offering the possibility that the man-made climate change story was not true, despite the growing evidence.

Indeed back in 2007 Gingrich was supposed to debate John Kerry on the issue of climate change, but the debate never happened.  Gingrich showed up, but he agreed with Kerry.

He [Kerry] tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

Gingrich protested this mischaracterization. "We're not arguing over whether it should be urgent," he said.

Kerry persisted: "We're arguing over the level of the urgency."  

"The question of urgency isn't what's being debated here," Gingrich repeated.

Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"

Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.

"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.

"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied.

Allow me to be clear, Newt Gingrich is certainly entitled to his opinion, and if he truly has conservative green ideas, I would love to see them.  But first the entire man-made climate change theory must be proven.  At this point there is much science proving that it is nothing but a hoax. Newt is a very bright man, he certainly knows this, so his fondness for the climate change nonsense seems more like a way to expand his support base. That is not leadership, it's pandering.