As the “life and death” 11 day summit on global warming marches on in Copenhagen, scientists are joining together in a single ominous voice to damn all of advanced society for the conveniences we so callously employ without thought of the fatal damage we are inflicting upon our fragile planet.

“I don’t have high hopes,” said Josefino Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But I hope that the participants could get to a good plan on how to minimize green house gas emissions.  “We need to change our mind frame – our values,” said Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.  He went on to say “In this problem, I think we are seeing the worst of ourselves in the mirror.”

The problem being discussed by these learned men, whose very livelihood depends on governmental funding for manmade global warming research, is that we fat cat Americans and other technologically advanced societies are too concerned about our creature comforts to care about the impact they are having on our environment and our society as a whole.  Ahhhh….Ted Kaczynski would be proud.

My first thought as I watched these men of science approach the lectern to continue their relentless onslaught against all things modern was “How do they walk with balls that big?”.

You see, here is my idea.  If they are so worried about all the damage being done to the ozone by the unbridled use of modern conveniences why would insist on flying scientists from all around the globe, and truck massive loads of support equipment to Copenhagen?  The last manmade global warming summit was held as part of the G8 conference this past July in Italy.  Once again, for that summit, planeloads of beard-stroking deep thinkers were flown in to express their overwhelming disapproval of the use of carbon emitting equipment, like the plane they flew in on.   From there all the necessary support equipment was crated up and trucked to Copenhagen where the same pointy heads flew into town to do it all over again.

They are calling this meeting a summit, I disagree.  Why not call it what it really is; an international sales meeting.

The scientists focusing in the area of manmade global warming create no product to generate a financial return other than their research.  Is it any wonder that their research would conclude that more funding for further study is necessary?  Is it any wonder that some of these high level research facilities would intentionally doctor the tests results to keep the cash flowing? 

With the recent economic hardships most businesses are now facing many have chosen to limit travel expense and use the incredible advances in technology to hold their important meetings.  If manmade global warming is truly threatening to end life as we know it on planet earth, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon these saviors of mankind to hold their meeting via nonpolluting computer links rather than flying all the attendees and support personnel to Copenhagen for an 11 day getaway?

The scientific comments being freely distributed by these so called researchers does not jive with the actions of the commenter’s.   Rather than telling the world what we should be doing they should be showing the world how it’s done.

But perhaps shaming the United States and other wealthy nations into donating the large sums of money necessary to continue this charade is in fact exactly how it’s done.  Manmade global warming has become an industry unto itself.  The goal of this “sales meeting” is to expand that business.  No amount of truth or contrary data will be sufficient to force these funding fanatics to relinquish their death-grip on the world’s wallet.

I may not be a recognized expert in manmade global warming, but it doesn’t take a science degree to identify the source of all the hot air currently being emitted in Copenhagen.

I can hear Doc Severinsen and the boys in the band striking up that familiar theme song now.

Hurricane Rick is stalking off the coast of Mexico and climatologists are dusting off their hurricane preparedness pamphlets for what will likely turn out to be yet another dud. To be sure old Rick is kicking up some serious surf right now as a category 5 hurricane, the strongest storm to hit the Pacific in ten years. But it is also predicted to be a nothing more than a soaking rain storm by the time it reaches the Baja Peninsula area later this week.

As I read the news reports about Hurricane Rick it gave me pause. It seems as this year’s hurricane season draws to a close we have once again missed the destructive doom forecast by the global warming crowd. If the near obliteration of mankind that was so ominously predicted 5 years ago is going to take place in the 10 years it was envisioned, it had better get its devastating butt in gear.

The only real change that has transpired in this countdown to doomsday is a subtle but important name change. What started out as manmade global warming and later simply became global warming is now referred to in the more politically correct phraseology of climate change.

The problem with the whole manmade global warming aka climate change theory took shape as institutes of higher learning began to battle each other for the most portentous forecast of catastrophic destruction in an attempt to garner a greater share of the government grant pie. There was no money to be made in an honest appraisal or in investigating other possibilities for what will continue to be proven as temporary anomalies. Corporations were quickly incorporated and savvy politicians like Al Gore invested huge amounts of face time as well as sizable amounts of their own personal wealth to exploit what would become the greatest hoax since Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire of Rome.

Any scientist who dared to challenge the less than scientific science that was predicting these worrisome results were ostracized from the brotherhood and branded as a tool of big business. The same fate awaited any politician or even private citizen who questioned the veracity of the results. It was of course to the benefit of the big business being set up to capitalize on the global warming scare to make sure that no reasonable facts were ever introduced that would muddy the swirling tempest they were creating. And with the news media soundly in their side, that is exactly what they did.

The reason the urgency for proposed immediate action was so intense was so that legislation could be passed and huge sums of money could be set aside before the lack of death and destruction became an issue. Make no mistake about it; had the billions that were proposed been spent 5 years ago, the lack of devastating hurricanes again this year would have been credited to that spending. Not unlike Nancy Pelosi claiming the near trillion dollar non-stimulating stimulus spending has had an enormously positive impact on an economy that is in much worse shape than the climate.

Climate data for the last 10 years shows conclusively that global warming is not global. Extended data from a longer time period shows that climate change is in fact normal and for the most part cyclical.

As congress begins to wrap up its legislation on the non-crisis in healthcare and take up the non-crisis of global warming with Obama’s cap and tax legislation I wonder just how bad the economy has to get before folks start getting a little more rebellious about their representatives focus.

As for me, I’ll be donning the heavy winter parka I have had to wear since the beginning of October because of near freezing temperatures as I go to stand in the bread line.

That seems to be the premise on which most of the scientific reports are based. With volumes of data from points all over the globe, the manmade global warming factions are picking and choosing which tomes of information are important and which are not. Naturally anything that shows even the slightest rise in temperature is deemed as invaluable and any data that shows otherwise is excluded.

A perfect example of this came out of Argentina this past week. It seems that the glaciers in Argentina are actually growing in size. This obviously has the global warming bloc scrambling for answers, as it does not fit their neat little global impact model. The response from scientists at the Center for Scientific Study in Chile is that “not all glaciers respond equally to climate change”.

Now I don’t mean to sound stupid (probably too late for that), but if a glacier is made of ice (which it is) then these scientists are saying that not all ice is affected by rising temperatures. So if that’s the case, perhaps the problem is not with global warming but with wimpy ice. If we actually have ice that isn’t affected by globally warming temperatures why don’t we just put that temperature resistant ice on the supposedly melting polar ice caps and just use the wimpy, melting kind of ice for our beer coolers? It makes sense to me, but I’m not a highly subsidized scientific researcher.

The United Nations released their gloom and doom report of the number of people that will die because of raising temperatures. The report said these learned men of science feel the best solution for this oncoming heat wave holocaust is increased funding, to the tune of a hundred billion dollars. Surprise!

Bloomberg and Reuters carried a story out of the UK that stated “Climate Change May Kill Thousands in UK by 2017”. This is based on a study showing the impact of the theoretic increase in heat waves. What they didn’t include in their piece was a report carried by the BBC which said even more lives would be saved by an increase in temperature due to a decrease in cold weather related deaths. The BBC has always been a strong supporter of the global warming team so their editorial decision to carry this report was surprisingly admirable.

A similar pro and con debate is beginning in the US Congress with Midwestern politicians citing the damage that would be done to farmers in America’s rural Farm Belt communities by the cap and trade regulations proposed by the President and Representatives from both coasts.

In what appears to be a growing rift within the Democrat Party regarding the presidents cap and trade policy, Democrat Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota said “It looks to us they made a deal on the two coasts with the big guys and didn’t think about us…the farms, the Midwest.” He went on to explain that Midwestern farmers depend heavily on the energy produced by cheap coal burning power plants. Cap and trade would dramatically increase their costs and impede their ability to remain solvent. If the ethanol fiasco taught us anything it is that any impact on the food grown in the Midwest will have dramatic and certainly deadly consequences around the world.

On Tuesday, the White House released a report based on the work of government scientists that said climate change will cause more frequent and intense heat waves. Rep. Peterson responded by saying “We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had. They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing…”

Willie Soon an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has compiled data showing the earth is warming but that the affects of man-made greenhouse gasses is negligible. Rather the variation in climate is due to variable solar output. He has proof that the documentable changes in energy put out by the sun, the source of all the earth’s heat, corresponds exactly to the historical changes in climate.

The UN has attempted to suppress Dr. Soon’s report and Greenpeace has placed him on their ominous “deniers” list.

Then Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, a scientist and mathematician at the University of Wisconsin published his findings that the earth is actually cooling and has been since 2001 and will continue to do so for the next 10 to 20 years. He says climate is heavily affected by a few well known oscillating systems, El Nino in the Pacific for one, and that from time to time four major oscillating systems synchronize. He has data showing the impact of this from 1943, the 1970’s and currently.

So what are we to take from all this?

Well first, not all ice melts over 32 degrees. Second, everything is relative. And third, if the UN can snag another hundred billion from man-made global warming you can bet your ass they are going find some.

Question: Why is the GOP making a stink over the Obamas flying to New York for a romantic evening?

Answer: Because the press won’t do it!

Barack and Michelle Obama jetted to New York City for a date night to dine at a fancy restaurant, “a seminal Greenmarket haven”, and take in a Broadway play about black struggles in the early 1900’s.

I understand that the President of the United States does not take a vow of poverty. Presidents, like most successful politicians, are usually fairly wealthy, including this one who made millions by being credited as author of not one but two ghostwritten “autobiographies”.

I also understand that the president is entitled to a personal life with his wife and family, particularly one like Obama with a young family. I could not care less what kind of mustard the president asks for on his hamburger during what are becoming his semi-regular lunch excursions to burger stands in DC. Frankly, I find it exceedingly more desirable that this president goes out for a nibble than the previous Democrat president who opened his own weenie stand in the oval office and invited aides to take one.

What I don’t understand is how the Washington press core hammered George Walker Bush on every personal trip he made, regardless of the destination, yet when Barack Hussein Obama, the president of cap and trade and mandatory energy conservation, boards a private jet to New York City to take his wife to dinner the silence from the same bastions of truth and fairness is deafening.

I am not saying that Barack and Michelle Obama don’t deserve a night on the town. It’s got to be nice to have a dinner without his live-in mother-in-law sitting there. But at a time when other wealthy men, like the CEO’s of the automakers, are publicly flogged for taking their private planes to Washington DC it seems more than a bit disingenuous when the President and his First Lady do the same thing on the taxpayers dime for a nice dinner and a Broadway play.

I get it that the CEO’s can fly coach without having to make the same special security arrangements that are necessary for the president. But the security and personnel needed for this type of romantic adventure for the Obamas only furthers the point. When the president travels it is no small or inexpensive affair.

While the president’s private jet did not buzz the office buildings in downtown Manhattan for a photo-op, I am certain it caused a carbon footprint at least equal to the carbon footprint left by Al Gore’s private jet when he last visited Washington to discuss the dangers of our carbon footprints.

The bottom line is you simply can’t have it both ways. Either you’re for wealthy people doing the things that wealthy people do, like flying their private jets to quant and romantic getaways, or you are for wealth redistribution and imposed energy conservation.

The other key issue is that wealthy people fly to these locations on their own money; the president takes his wife out to dinner and a show on ours. Am I to believe that there was no way for this president/husband to keep his promise to his wife for a night on the town by tying it into a presidentially related trip to New York?

But my biggest question remains, why is the White House press corps not asking these questions? With all the outrage at what CEO’s and brokers on Wall Street are paid, why is this Obama trip viewed as a husband being considerate to his wife? Don’t the Wall Street CEO’s and brokers have spouses that they have made promises to as well? If the CEO’s tried to expense a date night like this against their companies expense accounts they could be charged with tax fraud.

I’m waiting for Helen Thomas to ask these questions.

I’ll probably be waiting a while.

Al Gore brought his global warming dog and pony show to Capitol Hill last week as the key speaker before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The purpose of his visit was to discuss new cap-and-trade legislation. A topic near and ear the ex-VP’s heart and wallet.

Gore left Washington DC in 2001 with a net worth of around $2 million. In only 8 years he has been able to increase his personal worth to an estimated $100 million. To say the least, global warming has been berry berry good to Mr. Gore.

The reason for his intense interest in getting cap-and-trade legislation passed is that he got in on the ground floor of creating this whole scam. The essence of cap-and-trade is that polluting industries will be given limits on the amount they can pollute the atmosphere. If they go beyond those limits (caps) they will be forced to buy carbon offsets. These carbon offsets will be the new currency of industry. Companies that reduce their emissions will end up with extra carbon offsets to trade to companies that need them. It’s like a monopoly game where Big Al and his business partners are the bankers. As such Mr. Gore stands to make money on every trade of his newly created currency. Even Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs understands the potential for uncapped profits in this shell game and has invested as part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a board where these carbon offsets will be traded like stocks and bonds.

During the question and answer period of Big Al goes to Washington Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn noted that Mr. Gore had joined the venture capital group Kleiner-Perkins. She also noted that K-P had invested a billion dollars in 40 companies that stood to benefit greatly from the new cap-and-trade legislation. Ms. Blackburn asked “Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?” Mr. Gore was not amused.

His demeanor immediately changed and in his most indignant, condescending tone replied “You know congresswoman, anybody who thinks I would do this for the money doesn’t know me very well. Why would you ask me a question like that?” Ms. Blackburn replied that it was in fact a legitimate question that she had been asked by her constituents. Mr. Gore continued his non-answer by saying “I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Is there something wrong with that? Are you telling me that you are against American business?” The false bravado and feigned look of martyrdom on his face had all the markings of “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski”.

The answer of course is clear. Mr. Gore and his business partners stand to personally make a literal boatload of money from this eco-game of three card monty. Gore later claimed that all the money he has personally made, “every penny of it” was directed by him back into a nonprofit organization. How noble. How inspiring. How much of this blatant BS does he expect us to believe?

The fact is that the very un-altruistic Mr. Gore has personally invested over $35 million, not in nonprofits but in the very for profit Capricorn Investment Group. This group invests in the makers of environmentally friendly products, each of which would likely benefit greatly from new cap-and-trade legislation and the continuation of the “go green or die” hokum being perpetrated on the American psyche.

You may ask “Hey Big Frick! What do I care if Al Gore makes a lot of money by helping save the planet?” To which I would respond “How wrong you are my bright little star.”

You see cap-and-trade does nothing to save the planet. It allows industry to continue to pollute at the same level they always have. It’s just now they must pay for it through the carbon offsets. And where do you think the money will come from to pay for the carbon offsets? Why from the consumers of the products those industries manufacture of course.

If this whole smoke and mirrors cap-and-trade system was above board Mr. Gore would have no problem admitting where his newfound wealth had come from and why he and his business partners are working so tirelessly to get this new legislation passed.

Big Al “Mr. Roboto” Gore has learned a most important lesson from his past boss Bill Clinton. The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made.

Such is the case study being reported by the British newspaper The Sun. The latest and greatest study by the world’s best and brightest scientific minds proves that global warming, the bane to our existence and possible squelcher of all life on this planet, is caused by(insert descending musical “dunt dunt dahhhh” here) ……………………Fat People!!!!

These hard working scientists have conclusively proven that fat people eat. They have also concluded that many of us are what you would call BIG eaters. This phenomenon of fat people eating causes increased food production which in turn causes more CO2 gas emissions warming the planet. It is my understanding the CO2 gas emissions are the byproduct of producing the food and not from us fat people digesting it. That is probably a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak, but I am certain it is worth a government grant to conduct a new study.

These brilliant scientists also discovered that fat people drive cars. Not only do we drive cars but we are more likely to drive cars than skinny people. This also adds to the deadly emissions threatening life as we know it on the planet. Once again it is my understanding that the emissions being cited are from the cars and not the drivers, although probably worthy of another government funded study as well.

The third and most chilling discovery is that fat people breathe. And not only do we breathe but apparently we breathe more than skinny people. Dr. Philip Edwards of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving a gas guzzler.” It is estimated that each tubby respirator is responsible for an additional ton of CO2 each year versus a skinny breather. The World Health Organization estimates this adds a billion tons of extra CO2 each year. If my math is correct that would mean the WHO is estimating a billion big eaters are lugging around their gas guzzling bodies. I’m surprised the planet can turn at all.

Dr. Edwards and his colleague Ian Roberts published this study in the International Journal of Epidemiology, following in the footsteps of Australian professor Paul Zimmet who predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006.

Once this report reaches the masses there could be dire consequences faced by me and my blubbery brotherhood. I have already drawn the shades and dimmed the lights lest the townspeople where I live show up at my home holding wooden torches and shouting “PLANET KILLER”. I fear that activists will lay in wait outside fast food establishments waiting for a big eater. The poor unsuspecting tubby will walk up to the cash register expecting to order his double cheeseburger and large fry only to be doused with a can of Slim Fast by a marauding emaciate. Woe to those of us whose belt buckle cannot be seen or whose tank top was actually used at one time to cover a tank.

Having nowhere else to turn I have decided to create my own organization for the protection and advancement of the heftier humans inhabiting the earth. I will call it PET FART or People for the Ethical Treatment of Fatties And Rotund Tubbies.

Annual dues to PET FART will be payable by cash, check, chocolate or buy one get one free Dairy Queen coupons.

Any guy over the age of about 30 with a prostate knows exactly what’s coming next. Hold your breath, grab the backside of the examination table and hope that it’s over quickly. It’s never over quick enough and at least I have never even gotten a dinner out of the deal.

It’s one of those things you just endure. I get the same feeling of dreaded anticipation every time I read another story about the immanent destruction of the planet due to manmade global warming. And boy, the news wires are jammed to hilt with one story after another of how we are all going to hell in a handbasket due to melting ice flows and rising sea levels.

With each new report more dire then the previous one and every conceivable attempt made to tie global warming to some natural disaster it has become apparent that thar’s gold in them thar carbon footprints.

Penn State University just published a report that the entire continent of Antarctica is warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet, disagreeing with all previous reports that showed otherwise. This report was dutifully covered by the journal Nature in its January 21st issue.

The key to this study is that it was funded by the National Science Foundation, a foundation that just received over $3 billion in new funding in the presidents non-stimulus spending package.

The study which was set up to prove exactly what it proved is not based on any new information or scientific data. The study simply used the existing data, which in some cases is only for the last 25 years, and redid the math so that the calculations showed warming rather than cooling. It than made assumptions on the data collected and extrapolated it out to say that it covered 50 years, which is actually twice as long as some of the data covered.

Headlines claimed that sea levels are rising faster than ever, reporting on a story from the National Center for Space Studies in France. My first thought is why does France have a National Center for Space Studies and why the hell are they studying sea levels. But regardless of my skepticism, the study claims that sea levels are rising twice as fast as was originally thought. It is only later that it is explained that the study is comparing data from only the last 15 years and comparing it to data from the 50 years prior. Once again it ignores the rules of long term data collection and also uses two completely different measuring systems and then extrapolates the data to come out this way.

The Carnegie Institute of Science, which also operates on government grants and focused corporate contributions, reported that carbon emissions have been growing by 3.5% since 2000 versus the 0.9% reported in the 1990’s. The study places the blame for this 400% increase squarely in the use of coal. It goes on to claim that because of these increased emissions no part of the world has experienced any reduction in temperature since the year 2000. The report once again uses extrapolated data to come up with a mathematical formula that proves this point. The only problem with the conclusion of the math is that it does not coincide with the actual temperature readings of thermometers.

All of these studies have one thing in common. They were all funded by either government grants or by industries that stand to benefit greatly by the results. It’s like the recent conversion of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens who is now investing heavily in alternative energy. He claims that his research shows oil will be back over $150 per barrel from its current $35 per barrel within two years. He uses that as a reason to invest in alternative energy. My question is, if he truly believes that, why wouldn’t he invest in oil again and make a freaking killing? The answer is simple. There is more money to be made by the sham that is global warming than by the reality and uncertainty of commodity prices and option trading.

Ireland’s Environmental Minister recently put a ban on the television broadcast of the British government’s advertisements claiming global warming calling them “insidious propaganda”.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that “Environmentalism and global warming alarmism is challenging our very freedom” he went on to say that he didn’t see any statistical data that proved any of the claims of global warming, in fact the data showed otherwise. “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.”

The global warming industry has a firm grip on the media and allows no room for dissention. Any report or data that even remotely disproves some if the mathematical profiles created to support the warming claims are banished and held in complete contempt without any chance for rebuttal.

The scientific community knows how to get its bread buttered and they will be damned if they let a few facts put them on a diet.

That’s why at the 175th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Chicago recently many of the topics were directly related to global warming and the research dollars involved.

Bud Ward from Yale University and Pallab Ghosh of the BBC discussed the increased need for scientific expertise in the growing newsroom coverage of global warming in a variety of areas including political coverage, economic coverage and even entertainment angles.

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University, urged scientists to be less equivocal in conversations with reporters to avoid any appearance that there is not a complete scientific consensus on the issue of global warming, regardless of the report data.

After Jeremy Jackson from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography discussed how eating tuna is immoral, Mark Serezze from the University of Colorado discussed the accelerating degree to which the polar ice caps are melting. Obviously Mr. Serezze spoke before the recent report showing that the data showing the acceleration has been proven false due to a recently discovered drifting in the satellite aiming used to collect the data, although I doubt it would have changed his dire warnings of global destruction and the need for additional funding for research.

A seminar was given on how global warming is causing us to become fat by forcing us to eat more soft food. This increases not only body fat but also amino acid production causing oddly shaped skulls. It was only later that it was revealed the study was done on Burmese pythons.

But probably the best science was saved for the ever expanding lore of Charles Darwin who was celebrating his 200th birthday.

Darwin’s research was unbelievably expanded as a means of justification for scientists that touted Darwinism in their studies on diet, agriculture, feminism, morality and Natural Security where evolutionary biology was used as a means of increased national security.

But my favorite scientific report came from Daniel Blumstein of UCLA who talked about how we as a nation can improve our national security through the study of marmots. “You can’t stay in your burrow all the time” he said.

When it comes to this absurd display of cash for results science and the fact that the cash is coming out of my pocket, my burrow sounds like the place I want to be. And if I come out and see my shadow it means another 10 years of global warming.

I have the data to back that up.