All life on planet depends on CO2

A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses: it is an idea that possesses the mind. Robert Bolton

The Possessive Belief
CO2 (CARBON) IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I can’t say it more boldly but it doesn’t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create.

A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don’t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn’t require understanding of the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.

Contradictory Evidence

The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows this can’t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production and therefore all life on the planet.

Dr Ferenc Miskolczi provided the most recent scientific argument against CO2 as the cause of temperature change. Here is an explanation by Dr Miklos Zagoni.

It illustrates why the scientific arguments that CO2 is not the problem are not making much headway – they’re very complicated. Basically, Miskolczi is saying that the Greenhouse Effect is present but essentially constant over time, therefore temperature variations are due to some other cause. He is extending the idea of saturation, already known about CO2, to all greenhouse gases. I refer to this as the black paint condition. If you want to block light coming through a window a single coat of black paint will stop almost all of it. Second and third coats reduce the light but by decreasing fractions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is like the first coat of paint – doubling and tripling the amount reduces heat going to space by decreasing fractions. The IPCC got around this problem by incorrectly claiming a positive feedback. This says increased CO2 raises global temperature that increases evaporation of water vapor to the atmosphere. This supposedly enhances the warming due to increased CO2, but the idea is now discredited. Miskkolczi’s argument means any variations in global temperature are almost all due to changes in solar and geothermal energy. Inclusion of geothermal is unusual. This energy from within the earth, especially into the oceans is essentially and as I have long argued, incorrectly ignored.

Failed Predictions

The IPCC claim they do not make predictions but produce what they call scenarios. This is a deception: they are predictions and understood as such by the public. More important IPCC urge politicians to use them as the basis for policy through The Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The scenarios are a range of possible future global temperatures determined from a combination of climate and economic conditions. Ian Castles and David Henderson have roundly criticized them. MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen referred to them as children’s exercises.

The 2007 IPCC report says,

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. (SRES is Special Report on Emissions Scenario)

That simply hasn’t happened. What is happening cannot happen according to the IPCC. Their 2007 Report painted them into a corner. It claimed with over 90% certainty that CO2 was increasing because of human economic activities and was almost the sole cause of temperature increase. Notice the quote says temperature will rise even if greenhouse gases don’t increase. The problem is CO2 has increased yet the temperature has declined.

Equally important the recent economic downturn was not anticipated, which is a measure of the failure of the entire IPCC approach. They claim that economic activity is the key to human production of CO2, which causes warming. Over the last 18 months the dramatic increase in gasoline prices and then the serious recession should have caused a measurable drop in CO2 levels. It didn’t! There is no evidence of a decline as the NOAA graph illustrates.

Ignoring the Obvious

At what point does misrepresentation of facts become lies? A general definition of the word lie is “an intentionally false statement”, but this applies to a single statement and the key word is “intentional”. A single misunderstanding or a misstatement can occur, but what if there are a series of misstatements from an individual or group? What happens when many statements are proved incorrect, but they continue to repeat them or fail to acknowledge they were false?

There is a long and growing list of statements by promoters of human CO2 induced global warming that have proven incorrect. Yet they continue to push their claim by ignoring the evidence and diverting attention with new specious and spurious claims. Most politicians and mainstream media continue to believe because they don’t understand or don’t want to understand for political reasons. However, even they must understand when the predictions are consistently wrong. Science is simply defined as the ability to predict, so the failure invalidates the science even if you don’t understand the science. People who persist only have a blind belief and as the adage says, there are none so blind as those who will not see. What a terrifying basis for devastating and totally unnecessary energy and economic policies.

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesauru

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

NYT and Reporter Revkin Issue 'Correction' – Admit 'Error' in Front Page Global Warming Article Touted By Gore!

Washington, DC – The New York Times has issued a “climate correction” for an “error” in its April 24, 2009 (posted online April 23) high profile front page global warming article that was touted by former Vice President Al Gore during his Congressional testimony as evidence that industry was clouding the science of climate change. [ See: Gore Mouthing-Off About Make-Believe Madoffs & NYT Corrects Article Gore Cited in Congressional Testimony]

But just little more than a week after publishing the front page article, The New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin have now admitted the article “erred” on a key point. Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” As Climate Depot exclusively reported, Revkin's article came under immediate fire from scientists and others who called into question the central claims and the accuracy of the story.

In a May 2, 2009 post titled “A Climate Correction”, Revkin and the New York Times wrote: “The article cited a 'backgrounder' that laid out the coalition's public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee's conclusion. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (warming) that will result.'"

The New York Times also posted an “Editors' Note” on May 2 with the same correction.

In addition, the original Times article now has a May 2 “Editors' Note” and Revkin's Dot Earth Blog has a note, “describing an error in the news story.”

Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter was the first to dismiss the NYT's Revkin article as “strange, silly even.”

Carter wrote to Climate Depot on April 23, 2009:

Revkin's latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted”, I'll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990. My guess is that Revkin -- like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities -- is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December. #

UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was even more outraged and accused the New York Times and Revkin of “deliberate misrepresentation” in climate article and of writing a “mendacious article.”

Monckton wrote the following to New York Times Public Editor and Readers' Representative Clark Hoyt, Esq., on April 28, 2009:

“The New York Times guidelines for staff writers on 'Journalistic Ethics' begin by stating the principles that all journalists should respect: impartiality and neutrality; integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Andrew Revkin's front-page article on Friday, 24 April, 2009, falsely alleging that a coalition of energy corporations had for many years acted like tobacco corporations, misrepresenting advice from its own scientists about the supposed threat of "global warming", offends grievously against all of these principles.”

Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges

Back in 1885 it cost 2 cents to post a letter. Who would have thought that as postal charges climbed by 40 cents through the next 120 years, that global temperatures would mirror that rise in timing and slope and gain almost one full degree?

Ominously, US Post is set to raise the charges 2c to 44c on May 11, 2009. Postal Action Network (PAN) has already sprung into existence this afternoon and plans to produce a boycott campaign of the new 44c Homer Simpson stamps. Overworked postal workers are enthusiastic. Homer Simpson is reported to have said “Give me the number for 911.”
homer simpson stamp 44c

Barbara Boxer, majority Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, immediately set up an inquiry, announcing that all future changes in price for US post must be approved by the EPA. “We’ll need a full environmental impact statement. We can’t just let global damage be done willy nilly on the basis of some arbitrary postal expenses committee’s need to balance the books. No other government service has to balance their budget, why should US Post?”

President Obama immediately convened a task force at the Federal Reserve to loan $450 billion to US Post to keep prices constant until 3400 A.D..

Tuvalu promptly announced they would cut their postal charges in half ‘just in case’. They are asking for donations in order to keep their postal service running, but are considering shifting to carrier pigeons.

The mechanism is far from clear. Professor Chrichton-Boots from the Chicago Schools of Economics, cautioned that US Post prices are a good proxy for inflation, and that it may be inflation that is really behind the recent change in climate. He admitted it was puzzling that there appears to have been global temperature changes for 3-5 billion years before the advent of either US Postal services, or inflation. “You would think the planetary climate would have been stable.” But Harvard social researchers are calling for funding for archaeological digs to find postage stamps from the precambrian. “It’s under-researched”. US Post said this type of finding would be very important but, if any stamps were found, they would be unable to honor them: “Since at the time, the US didn’t exist, in government, in theory, or even as a landmass”.

A spokesman from US Post pointed out that the ‘Forever’ series of stamps (which cost 41c, but are ‘good forever, regardless of price rises’) are anti-inflationary. They were issued in 2007 which “may explain the cooler weather since then”*.

Critics pointed out that correlation is not causation, and “you can produce a link between any two monotonically rising lines on a graph”. The newly formed UN Intergovernmental Panel on Postal Changes called them deniers, while Jim Hansen from NASA pronounced that executives from The Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service should be jailed henceforth and also retrospectively.

The Russians (Pochta Rossii) announced they would lift the cost of letters from 10 roubles to 100, effective from Monday. “Siberia is too cold”.
*(As a curious aside, the Forever stamps may have been the US Government’s most successful investment tool in recent times, gaining 14% in value since 2007, while the Dow and everything else, lost over 40%. Thus proving that the US Federal Reserve could better maintain US purchasing power parity if they switched the world’s Reserve Currency from US Dollars to “Forever Stamps”. )

Spending billions on a non-existent problem

“From error to error one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud.

The Issue
The US Congress is currently discussing the Obama climate change strategy and Cap and Trade. One part of the plan says, “Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.”

The term “greenhouse gas emissions” is either deliberately misleading or indicates complete ignorance of the science, or both. What they really mean is CO2, yet it is less than 4% of greenhouse gases and the human portion a fraction of that. Why do they want it reduced? It is not a pollutant and not causing global warming or climate change. Reducing it is completely unnecessary and harmful for the plants and will cost trillions. They propose energy alternatives that are potentially more dangerous because they don’t work and can replace only a fraction of existing energy sources. This pattern of identifying the wrong agent of change, blaming humans, and proposing inadequate replacements at great cost is not new. We saw very similar events and sequences with claims that Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) was destroying the ozone layer.

The Pattern

Many cite the Montreal Protocol as a template for dealing with global warming because it supposedly resolved the ozone crisis. It didn’t! It’s a template not because it worked but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created other problems. It is also a template for understanding the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence and natural processes were ignored.

They said CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. Recovery of the ozone would take a very long time. They were wrong!

Today the failed predictions are essentially ignored although some scientists continue to seek the truth. Recently, University of Waterloo physics and astronomy professor, Qing-Bin Lu published a paper showing that cosmic rays are a major factor in the extent of the so-called ozone hole.

The issue has faded and only lingers in the massive sales of sun blockers. When I ask people what happened to the ozone issue, they invariably pause for a moment and say, “Yes, whatever happened to that?” The answer is there was no problem and the variations in ozone were perfectly natural.

A major tenet of the environmental paradigm is that almost all change is due to human activity. Once a change is determined it triggers a search for the human cause without consideration of natural change.

Measurements of ozone in Antarctica by the British Antarctic survey team in the early 1980s determined levels were lower than measures taken in 1957. I recall the press reports on this event and James Lovelock, the British scientist who proposed the Gaia hypothesis, warning against overreaction, but he was ignored.

Later they said he was wrong. In fact, he was right but it didn’t matter. It was an issue that fit environmental hysteria and was quickly deemed an unnatural change and the search for a human cause began. In 1974, Sherwood and Molina provided what they were looking for. In lab experiments they determined chlorine as the active ingredient in chlorofluorocarbon that destroys ozone. An unproven hypothesis became a fact and science was sidelined. As Richard Lindzen said about global warming and CO2, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.
The Facts

There are no holes in the ozone, there were none when it became a political issue in the 1990s and there are none today. This is not an issue of semantics, but an important fact in the relationship between scientific accuracy and the public perception and political reaction. The amount of ozone in the ozone layer varies considerably in different regions, at different altitudes and over time. The so-called “ozone hole” is a region in the ozone layer generally located over Antarctica in which the ozone level is the lowest during the Southern Hemisphere winter. Even at this time the thickness of the ozone layer is approximately 1/3 of the global average. It is an area of thinning due to natural causes.

Ozone is produced when portions of ultraviolet light (UV) strike free atmospheric oxygen. This splits the oxygen (O2) into single oxygen (O) molecules that combine in threes to create ozone (O3). This occurs in the ozone layer from approximately 40 km down to 15 km. Height and depth of the layer varies with latitude and season. Ozone amounts vary at different altitudes, but only decreases were reported in the media particularly those over Antarctica. The system is self-correcting because as more ultraviolet penetrates deeper into the atmosphere it confronts more free oxygen. By 15 km above the surface over 95% of the UV has been expended in the creation of ozone.

A major cause of changes in the size and extent of the Antarctic ozone hole are the intense wind patterns and circulations associated with the extensive Antarctic high-pressure zone and the surrounding wind pattern known as the Circumpolar Vortex. A second factor is Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) that forms when gases including water vapor sublimate directly to crystals because of the intensely low temperatures (-70°C and below) and pressures over the South Pole. But just as evidence against CO2 is ignored the environmentalists and politicians pushed ahead while deriding and demeaning those who wanted all the facts on the table.

Is the Sun a ‘Global Warming’ Denier?

The Sun isn’t playing ball with the ‘global warmers’. Indeed, I expect one of our more rabid Labour ministers to come out any day now fatuously accusing the fading star of ‘global warming’ denial on a par with denying the effects of smoking or the link between HIV and AIDS.


But one has to laugh. The sun is currently so inactive that even our ‘global warming’-obsessed media has been forced, through heavily rose-tinted sunglasses, to admit the phenomenon, rushing to add, of course, that this doesn’t mean that ‘global warming’ has halted, or that we must stop mending our evil ways.


‘Global Warming’ In Trouble


Yet, the truth is that ‘global warming’ [not, let’s be clear, climate change] is possibly in trouble. The whole point is that climate is the most complex of systems, and that it is impossible - madness even - to try to predict future climates with respect to one politically-selected variable.


So what precisely is all the fuss about this very big other variable, the Sun? Put simply, a thing called ‘Solar Cycle 24’ is long overdue; it just can’t seem to get going. Solar-cycle intensity is measured by the maximum number of sunspots. Sunspots are dark blotches on the Sun that mark areas of heightened magnetic activity. The more sunspots, the more likely it is that major solar storms will occur. The next 11-year cycle of solar storms (i.e. ‘Solar Cycle 24’) was predicted to begin in Autumn, 2006, but it appears to have been seriously delayed.


This is what Paul Stanko of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reported as saying about this on the wonderful Watts Up With That? web site:

Claude Allegres befürchtete Rückkehr in die Politik.

A post for Silvia.

Die Gerüchte gingen bereits vorher hier in Frankreich herum und scheinen sich jetzt zu bestätigen. Claude Allegre, einst sozialistischer Forschungsminister und hard-boiled climate sceptic, ist auf den Weg zurück, diesmal in die konservative Regierung unter Francois Fillon. Allegre hat mehrere klimakritische Texte herausgegeben, die teilweise am Rande der Lächerlichkeit herschrammend ein Sammelsurium aus im Netz zusammengegoogelten Texten darstellen. Ich hatte bereits einmal einen nur so vor Fehlern überlaufenden Text von Ihm korrigieren müssen. In einer vor kurzen stattfindenden Fernsehshow bezeichnete er gar meinen Chef und offiziellen französischen IPCC Abgesandten, Jean Jouzel, gar als "tricheur" ("Betrüger").


Bild 1: Claude Allegre war unter Lionel Jospin Forschungsminister und musste nach heftigen Protesten in der Lehrerschaft.

Seine Kontakte zu Sarkozy intensivierten sich wohl in der letzten Zeit und heute ging ein Fax an alle Institute des IPSL (eine Gruppe von in Paris gelegenen Labors, die zu Klimafragen arbeiten), dass Allègre im Laufe dieser Woche als Nachfolger des französischen Umweltminister, Jean Luis Borloo, eingesetzt wird. Borloo hatte sich in der Klimadebatte immer wieder für eine weitsichtige Energiepolitik gekennzeichnet durch eine Forderung nach starken Emissionsauflagen hervorgetan. Er hatte intensiv mit uns und insbesondere Jean Jouzel zusammengearbeitet.



Bild 2: Jean Luis Borloo wird diese Woche das Ministerium für Umweltschutz dem Klimaskeptiker Claude Allegre räumen müssen.

Allègres Nominierung, so ist hier die allgemeine Meinung, bedeutet wahrscheinlich einen generellen Umschwung in der französischen Klimapolitik. Einige Kollegen hier am IPSL fürchten sogar einen Einfluss auf den Teil des Etats, der für Klimaorschung aufgewandt wird. Wie das hier so üblich ist, wird bereits von Streik und Demonstrationen gesprchen. So oder so, es wäre ein harter Schlag für das IPSL und die von uns geplanten Grossprojekte, insbesondere die geplanten Antarktis Bohrungen.
Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Allegres Nominierung nicht auch die restliche französische Politik beeinflussen wird. Die Spannungen, die etwa hier zwischen der Sarkozy Regierung und den restlichen Mitgliedern des G20 erwähnt werden, könnten durchaus auch mit einem Ausscheren Frankreichs aus dem Kyoto Protokoll zu tun haben. Falls es soweit kommt, werde ich hier die Koffer packen.

PS Ich werde versuchen einige der Links noch durch deutsche Texte zu ersetzten. Wir sind hier aber alle noch ein wenig perplex und ich wollte diese sicher weitreichenden Neuigkeiten erstmal gepostet haben.

1960 JuKeBoX

1960 JuKeBoX

C02 Global Warming’s IPCC-created Hobglobin

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is responsible for providing the hobgoblin of global warming. They claim CO2 is almost the sole cause of warming while effectively ignoring the sun. Their claim that the sun is of little consequence is unbelievable and only a measure of their deception and lousy science. They only looked at one part of solar influence on weather and climate and didn’t do that accurately. Instead they used it to support their claim the temperature changes are not caused by the sun and therefore must be due to CO2. They only considered irradiance (heat and light) and concluded, incorrectly, it was of little consequence. They assume, because the variation is approximately 0.1% over approximately a 30-year period, it is of little consequence.

The number certainly seems small when expressed as a percentage of 100. However, it is estimated that only a 6% variation is sufficient to explain all known temperature variation in the history of the Earth. So 0.1% is significant in relation to 6%. To put this in context consider how much the temperature drops between night and day or even for the brief period of a total eclipse. As solar and climate scientist Willie Soon said, “We have known for 80 years that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.”

The IPCC do not include changes in sun/earth relationships collectively called the Milankovitch effect, a major cause of temperature change.

They ignore the high correlation between sunspots and global temperature which has a warmer Earth with many sunspots and colder with fewer. They claimed, legitimately, you must not assume cause and effect. However, they made the illegitimate claim there was no mechanism and the research was not produced in time to meet their deadline for inclusion. Both claims are wrong. A proposed mechanism first appeared in Science in 1991 when Christensen and Lassen published “Length of the Solar Cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with Climate.” Since then several articles appeared elaborating on the mechanism, most before the IPCC deadline. Why did they ignore it? Likely because it showed the sun explained temperature changes. Typical of the pattern of their manipulations they did break the deadline rule when it suited their argument.

Thomas Edison day

How I celebrated Thomas Edison day.

I kept my lights on and also turned on my Christmas lights.

Environmental whackos were urging everyone to turn off their lights
for one hour in celebration of “Earth Hour”
If you’re unfamiliar, “Earth Hour” is a feel good hour where
socialists and tree-hugging hippies unite to dismiss electricity,
fossil fuels and the modern conveniences that allow for historically
unrivaled prosperity, longevity, health and quality of life throughout
the world.
While the knuckleheads leader Al Gore were the dozen or so
floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the
driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.
We… had to witness the unpleasant TV broadcasting of a bunch of out of
touch with reality Ecochondriacs crying to save the planet while
burning candles made out of oil and releasing that much hated “carbon”
into the atmosphere.
I also wonder how many people fell in the dark or house fires were started ?
Thankfully, most of the Kool-Aid drinking human haters that
participated in “Earth Hour” undoubtedly spent the hour on their couch
or on their porch reflecting how solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short
and generally life would be without electricity.
The total impact on public policy and probably on people's
"consciousness" was about as effective as watching paint dry.
Believing that it makes one iota of difference to anyone, anywhere,anytime that turning off your lights
for an hour does anything except make the participant feel a false
sense of moral superiority in a Guilt free hour.
Maybe the one positive thing that did happen during that hour of Darkness is the
turning off of them new green "Trojan horse" mercury releasing fumes
from CFL lamps.
Personally April Fools day would be a better suited date.

Letter To the British Columbia School Boards

I admit that I am not a climatologist on the issue of global warming. However; I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.

One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.

In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.

In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.

In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.

In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.

As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, your assignment, based on the description in your permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses. contained in. BC Science 10.

How can a student write a critique about assertions made on global warming without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views to counter Anthropogenic Global Warming would be taught.

In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student/teachers should they choose to Learn from a climatologist instead from a television show hosted by a journalist with no science degrees.

If the "theory" of global warming is to be taught in your classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories -- with honesty about both . When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you(the school board)) are the check and balance.

Statements are made in Science 10 that are assertions that mix cause and effect: "climate change is affecting our planet right now. Ice is disappearing earlier in the spring, trees are budding earlier, and extreme weather events are causing more outbreaks of disease than 20 years ago." They are not only inaccurate but also dishonest.

I urge The school board to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed.

To do so would be not only be good training in science, but good education in citizenship.

W Robichaud

Williams lake BC

http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/pgs/links_u1.html

Green energy is not such a breeze

One by one, the energy giants that hoisted green flags and trumpeted their conversion to renewables are ducking and diving and hiding behind the curtains.
Iberdrola, a big investor in wind farms in Spain and the owner of ScottishPower, is slashing its spending on renewables by 40 per cent. Shell said recently it would no longer invest in wind turbines, preferring to focus its efforts on new biofuel technology, while BP has opted out of the UK renewables market, deeming it to be a poor bet.
It is tempting to see the great push for renewable energy in Europe as a fair-weather phenomenon. The performance of Britain's turbines is a case in point - for much of January they were operating at about 10 per cent of capacity.


Sailors use to wait for a breeze to come by and take them home..wind Power was not that efficient.

Lack of logic in those who claim to be logical

Global Warming: What is the motive and how has such a situation developed?

Once people realize that humans are not causing global warming and the IPCC claims are scientifically unjustified, despite strong support by environmentalists, two questions logically follow. What is the motive and how has such a situation developed? I examined the political motive in a series of articles starting here;

More...

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise

The photographs he attached are interesting to say the least, click for larger images:

And soon others were jumping in. Tom Harris quoted a study from Nils-Axel Mörner and provided a plot from Nils-Axel Mörner’s study of sea level using C14 isotope dating.

Harris wrote:

While Andrew does not personally say that sea level rise will swamp the Maldives soon, he implies he agrees with the scenario by including nothing at all to counter the validity of the Maldivian announcement. I suggest Andrew read about Morner’s work and get an expansion of the below misleading piece published right away. You can download (for the next 7 days) one of Dr. Morner’s most recent papers on the topic at http://tinyurl.com/dhz6gk . Note the below graph from that report, especially.

The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change

By Marc Sheppard

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” -- from the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists

Statistics in modern society

Most people know about Disraeli’s comment, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics”, but few understand how the application of statistics has affected our lives or how it developed and evolved. We sense it when everything sort of fits everyone, but doesn’t precisely fit anyone.

Many years ago, I monitored development of a housing estate for low-income residents. Planners knew who qualified as residents beforehand because of the criteria so they did a survey to determine the desires and expectations for all residents. After people had lived there for a while a second survey sought their judgment. The response was “It’s alright, but…” It was a predicable outcome because the planners designed for the average. Chances of any individual requests being included were very small. In any population there is a wide range of individuals, but modern society only accommodates the majority near the middle, that is within one standard deviation of the average.

Application of statistics to all elements of our lives is an outgrowth of what is generally called logical positivism. Wikipedia defines it as, “a school of philosophy that combines ”empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology.” In simple terms this means that if you can’t quantify something it doesn’t exist. It makes mathematics and its practical application, statistics, paramount. Ludwig Wittgenstein conceived the idea at the turn of the 20th century. Wikipedia notes, “Wittgenstein’s influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences, yet there are widely diverging interpretations of his thought.” Interpretations may diverge but the influence dominates our world and is at the center of why we have lost our way. The dominance is in the pure logical analysis of life and society.

International Conference on Climate Change

We Know! We all Know " They are all being paid by Exxon". Whatever that it is suppose to mean.

Arctic summer ice could vanish by 2013

Vincent`s scientific team has spent the last 10 summers on Ward Hunt Island, a remote spot some 2,500 miles northwest of Ottawa.The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday.

Warwick Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.

The year "2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we've been wrong -- each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected," he told Reuters.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and the sea ice cover shrank to a record low in 2007 before growing slightly in 2008.

In 2004 a major international panel forecast the cover could vanish by 2100. Last December, some experts said the summer ice could go in the next 10 or 20 years.

If the ice cover disappears, it could have major consequences. Shipping companies are already musing about short cuts through the Arctic, which also contains enormous reserves of oil and natural gas.

Vincent's scientific team has spent the last 10 summers on Ward Hunt Island, a remote spot some 2,500 miles (4,000 km) northwest of Ottawa.

"I was astounded as to how fast the changes are taking place. The extent of open water is something that we haven't experienced in the 10 years that I've been working up there," he said after making a presentation in the Canadian Parliament.

"We're losing, irreversibly, major features of the Canadian ice scape and that suggests that these more pessimistic models are really much closer to reality."

In 2008 the maximum summer temperature on Ward Hunt hit 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to the usual 5 degrees. Last summer alone the five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Canada's Far North, which are more than 4,000 years old, shrunk by 23 percent.

Vincent told Reuters last September that it was clear some of the damage would be permanent and that the warming in the Arctic was a sign of what the rest of the world could expect. He struck a similarly gloomy note in his presentation.

"Some of this is unstoppable. We're in a train of events at the moment where there are changes taking place that we are unable to reverse, the loss of these ice shelves, for example," he said.

"But what we can do is slow down this process and we have to slow down this process because we need to buy more time. We simply don't have the technologies as a civilization to deal with this level of instability that is ahead of us."

Did Someone forgot why it is called " SUMMER sea ice?

"In 2008 the maximum summer temperature on Ward Hunt hit 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to the usual 5 degrees. Last summer alone the five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Canada's Far North, which are more than 4,000 years old, shrunk by 23 percent."

Shrunk by 23 percent ? we were told it had collapsed in 2004.

http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/archives/40730/news/features/40730_01.html

And then we have a study in 1986 showing the Ice Shelves off Ellesmere had Collapsed in 1983

http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic39-1-15.pdf

How can they be more then 4000 years old if they were not there some 40 years ago?
..
"I was astounded as to how fast the changes are taking place. The extent of open water is something that we haven't experienced in the 10 years that I've been working up there," he said after making a presentation in the Canadian Parliament."

Sound more like a Panic Attack after noticing the possibility of a Tax payer Funded trips coming to an End.

Cap and Trade and Alternative energy: The real danger in Obama’s policies.

The stimulus package is a classic example of dishonesty staring down honesty.

It ignores and exacerbates the underlying financial problems as the stock market reaction indicates. It will create few private sector jobs, but government departments will grow greatly in numbers and power and that will require more and continuing funding. If you want to see how much government grows under such liberal policies look at the growth in United Kingdom bureaucracies under Gordon Brown when he was in charge of treasury and then as Prime Minister.

Perhaps the largest growth with Obama’s stimulus package will be in implementing and controlling the energy plans within the package. This will also be the most lasting and damaging legacy. It will increase the total cost of living and of doing business while making US businesses less competitive in world trade. It will set back the growth of new sources of energy by many years . Look at those who have tried the ‘green’ approach. The UK energy needs are in serious problems and closer to home California is suffering from green energy plans and involvements with Enron and alternative energies. The Canadian Province of Ontario energy needs were mismanaged by Maurice Strong and badly influenced by environmentalist David Suzuki.

Dishonesty is also evident because they have moved the goalposts again. First it was carbon credits, then it was carbon tax and now it is cap and trade. They are all the same idea falsely presented as methods of reducing CO2. In fact, they don’t reduce it at all but they do give government control and put more money in government hands. They are an environmental form of sin tax like those on tobacco and alcohol. The new name eliminates reference to CO2 (carbon) and taxes. A Cap, determined by the government, will limit the amount of CO2 you can produce. Details were expanded in Obama’s first budget proposal. He estimates a return of $625 billion from the cap and trade. It allows him to punish certain industries, as Obama indicated he would with the coal industry. The word Trade incorrectly implies some sort of business like approach. It is really an unnecessary transfer of wealth, just as carbon credits were in the Kyoto Protocol. As House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican said. “We’ve got real concerns about his plan on cap and trade,” “Let’s just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple.”

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled

Subject: Climate models are useless

Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and they have been returned to me. So I'm resending them in one combined e-mail.

Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

With best wishes, John

Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Latest Climate Falsehood

In May, 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that the North Pole could be ice free during last years melt season. The disappearing northern sea ice has been pointed to by global warming alarmists as visible proof that the Earth was doing a melt down. Today, however, the NSIDC announced that they have been the victims of “sensor drift” that caused them to underestimate the Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. It turns out that the demise of the arctic ice was greatly exaggerated.
As with the NASA Russian temperature debacle last year and the forced recalculation of US surface temperatures for the last century in 2007, the latest problem was discovered after NSIDC received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice free open ocean. A statement on the NSIDC web site, published February 18, 2009, explains the current faux pas this way:
As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data.Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers.

Gore Pulls CRED Data From Talk

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Andy Revkin at the New York Times asked Al Gore’s office for their comments on Gore’s use of data from CRED in Belgium in recent versions of his talk to illustrate the impacts of human-caused climate change on disasters. In response, Gore’s office has said that they will pull the slide, as it does not have a scientific foundation.

Kudos to Al Gore who has demonstrated a commitment to scientific accuracy in his presentation. However there are still some issues with their response. Here is how Gore’s office responded to Revkin as related at Dot Earth (please visit their for embedded links):

I can confirm that historically, we used Munich Re and Swiss Re data for the slide show. This can be confirmed using a hard copy of An Inconvenient Truth. (It is cited if you cannot recall from the film which is now several years old!). We became aware of the CRED database from its use by Charles Blow in the New York Times (May 31, 2008). So, it’s a very new addition.

We have found that Munich Re and other insurers and their science experts have made the attribution. I’m referring you particularly to their floods section/report [link, link] Both of these were published in a series entitled “Weather catastrophes and climate change-Is there still hope for us.”

We appreciate that you have pointed out the issues with the CRED database and will make the switch back to the data we used previously to ensure that there is no confusion either with regards to the data or attribution.

As to climate change and its impacts on storms and floods, the IPCC and NOAA among many other top scientific groups have indicated that climate change will result in more extreme weather events, including heat waves, wildfires, storms and floods. As the result of briefings from top scientists, Vice President Gore believes that we are beginning to see evidence of that now.

Switching from the CRED dataset to Munich Re (and Swiss Re) data does not solve the basic problem. As we found in an expert workshop organized in 2006 with Munich Re — The Munich Re dataset has exactly the same problems as the CRED dataset. Attribution of the role of greenhouse gas driven climate change in the increasing economic costs of disasters has yet to occur. So using a different dataset does not address the underlying problem.

So when Al Gore’s office says . . .

We have found that Munich Re and other insurers and their science experts have made the attribution.

. . . they are either cherry picking the selective views of a few people or simply mistaken. The scientific workshop that I co-organized with Peter Hoeppe of Munich Re concluded the following, with unanimous agreement among participants (PDF):

MET OFFICE: 'APOCALYPTIC CLIMATE PREDICTIONS' ARE MISLEADING

'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts: Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions

In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as some reports have suggested.

"The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again over the next few years," she says.

Pope's original article is the latest in a series of clues that all is not well within the climate change lobby. The great Gerald Warner has been covering the subject recently, with his usual flair:

This has been a bad 24 hours for the climate-change liars, beginning with Christopher Booker's exposure in The Sunday Telegraph of the fabrication of data to "prove" pretended warming in the Antarctic. As more and more scientists who have not been bought by the United Nations climate clique find the courage to voice dissent from the junk science peddled by the IPCC and a public plunged into economic depression loses patience with this multi-billion-pound scam, it looks as if the great global warming imposture is finally on the retreat.

By and large, the scientific community has been in agreement about climate change until now. But I reckon we're about to see open warfare between experts presenting serious, evidence-based research into the state of the planet and hysterical alarmists like James Hansen, who seem hell-bent on destroying our economy through eye-wateringly expensive and totally unnecessary "emergency measures".

UK's CO2 plan 'certain to fail'

The UK's plans to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 are fundamentally flawed and almost certain to fail, according to a US academic.

Roger Pielke Jr, a science policy expert, said the UK government had underestimated the magnitude of the task to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

He added that it would be more effective to "decarbonise" economic growth rather than focus on targets.

Professor Pielke made his comments during a speech at Aston University.

Professor Pielke said that a country's greenhouse gas trajectory was determined by three factors: economic growth; population growth; and changes in technology.

This meant, the academic from the University of Colorado suggested, that if people migrate to the UK and the economy boomed, it would be harder for politicians to achieve emissions cuts based on historic levels.

He calculated that the combined effects of possible population growth and economic growth could oblige the UK to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon intensity of energy at an unprecedented annual rate of 5.4%.

Conversely, if migrants left the UK and the economy slumped, there would be a downturn in emissions, for which politicians would claim unearned credit.

Bad week for hardware: Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite burns up

A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global-warming gases.

Thank God the Science is Settled! Can you imagine how Much more Money these Scientists would need if it was not?

Let's see Obama in his StinkMucus package will spend another 400 Millions to study Climate Change.
At Least now we know were Al Gore will get his 300 Millions he promise to spend Indoctrinating our Kids from... Their Parents!
I could have saved them a lot of Money if they Just ask Me.
The Climate Change all the time... See how easy that was?
Obama will also spend 800 millions in a study for Carbon Sequestration.. Pumping Air Underground ?? somethings tells me it will come back up. Stop The Insanity Please.

Comment is free A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap

That there exists something called carbon trading is about all that most people know. A few know, too, that Europe has created carbon exchanges, and traders who buy and sell. Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2. The theory sounded fine in the boom years, back when Nicholas Stern described climate change as “the biggest market failure in history” - a market failure to which carbon trading was meant to be a market solution. Instead, it’s bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.

Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

I guess selling AIR was not such a good idea after all.

Europe, Environmentalism and the Current Economic Crisis: A Contrarian View

The main aspects of Europeism, as I see them, can be summarized in the following way:

- the belief in social market economy, and the demonization of free markets;

- the reliance on civil society, on NGOs, on social partnership, on corporatism, instead of classical parliamentary democracy;

- the aiming at social constructivism as a result of the disbelief in spontaneous evolution of human society;

- indifference towards the nation state and blind faith in internationalism;

- the promotion of the supranationalist model of European integration, not its intergovernmental model.

Global warming a manmade political message to be etched in stone with stimulus package $400-million

The US economic stimulus package includes $400 million for climate research, but it isn’t needed because the science is settled. But sarcasm aside, the money will not improve the science because government funding goes to thwart not to advance science. Up to now money was used to prove an hypothesis not disprove it as is the normal scientific method and this practice will not change. Every time evidence emerges questioning the hypothesis it becomes the focus for a counterattack.

This began early when the traditional scientific method of disproving a hypothesis was usurped for political purposes. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW) assumes:

1. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere through the ill-named greenhouse effect.
2 An increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause global temperatures to rise.
3. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase because of growing human economies using fossil fuels.

The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science

The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.

It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors (some trained as scientists) can no longer avoid the reality that targets for stabilization such as 450 ppm (or even less realistic targets) are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe" rather than a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass. During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses. The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate. The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures. The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground. Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse. The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation. The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR. At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25) Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR. Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR. Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

Who is speaking for the plants?

There is no evidence CO2 is causing global warming or climate change but that is the basis for the slur and the proposed actions. As usual little thought is given to the direct and collateral damage such as the economic impacts from increased taxes and cost of doing business. No thought is given to the damage to nature. So you have the paradox of environmentalists screaming to reduce CO2 to save the planet, while putting all life in jeopardy by killing the plants. It is blind faith. But this is not surprising because the great problem of environmentalism as a religion is the failure to do full and proper cost/benefit analyses. For example, all you ever hear about are the down sides to warming when there are actually more up sides. One major downside rarely mentioned is the impact on plants of reduced CO2 levels.

Extreme environmentalists consider plants and animals more important than humans. Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said, “Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from human exploitation.”

David Graber, a research biologist with the National park Service said, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.” “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Getting rid of everyone permanently solves the problem – David Foreman former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society says the optimum number is zero. Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said, “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species, Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

Show The Science were CO2 cause Global Warming

RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Ms. Jackson:

Pursuant to the rights granted under the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5 of the United State Code section 552 (“FOIA”), I hereby request the following information:

Evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) is harmful to the environment and that carbon dioxide is the predominant driver of climate change. Following this paragraph, I present reasons why I do not think that carbon dioxide is harmful to our environment and is not the predominant driver of climate change. I request evidence that disproves each of these statements. “Evidence” does not include computer models that try to forecast temperatures for years, decades or a century into the future.

Our computer models do not model impacts on the climate by thunderstorms, volcanos, or impacts by meteorites and cannot forecast temperatures to within 1degree Fahrenheit for one month into the future and certainly not for a century into the future.

I hereby request evidence disproving the following statements that I believe to be true:

1. Water vapor is the prevailing greenhouse gas and retains heat more than all other gasses combined. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of Planet Earth would be below zero.

2. Plants need CO2 to grow. Wood charcoal is mainly carbon that trees extracted from carbon dioxide in the air. CO2 is what actually greens Planet Earth.

3. Plants grow faster in higher concentrations of CO2 and extract more CO2 from the air. Many operators of commercial greenhouses add CO2 to the ambient air which increases plant growth.

4. Man generates 3 billion tons of CO2 annually while plants absorb 75 billion tons of CO2 annually. Plants need all the anthropogenic (man-generated) CO2 plus an additional 72 billion tons of CO2 from natural sources including the oceans

5. The oceans hold 39,000 billion tons of CO2. In high latitudes, cold water adsorbs more CO2 than it expels. In low latitudes, warm water expels more CO2 that it adsorbs.

6. If the oceans release just .000077 of their CO2, that is more than all man-generated CO2.

7. NASA found that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2 and is not effective at retaining heat from the Sun. If an atmosphere of 95% CO2 on Mars is not an effective greenhouse gas, why would less than ½ of 1 percent of CO2 on Earth be an effective greenhouse gas and be the controlling factor for climate change?

8. Some people who claim that CO2 causes global warming use a graph that shows correlation between global temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years. The point they miss is that the warming occurred hundreds of years before the increase of CO2. Increased CO2 did not cause warming that occurred hundreds of years earlier.

I agree to pay processing fees for this request up to $ 100.00. If there are additional costs, please notify me and get my agreement to pay before incurring such costs.

If you need additional information about the requested items, please contact me at the above address Also, I ask that if for any reason you deny my request or withhold certain information, that you:
1. Provide a list of the denied or withheld materials,

2. Justify these deletions and withholdings by referencing specific exemption in the FOIA, and

3. Release all parts of the withheld material that are not exempt and can be released under the FOIA.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.


Respectfully,



Frederick T. Dykes

Copies to: President Obama; all U.S. Senators; all Members of the House of Representatives; The Democratic National Committee; the Republican National Committee; Association of International Automobile Manufacturers; Ford Motor Company; General Motors Corp; Chrysler Corp; Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post; Peter Baker, The New York Times; The Washington Times; Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; National Review; The Weekly Standard; ABC; CBS; NBC; Fox News; Glen Beck; Monica Crowley; Sean Hannity.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’ & Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post – November 11, 2008 ]

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. [Note: Theon's full note to EPW reprinted at the end of this report]

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warnings, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 & NYT's Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are not 'even physically possible' ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

Philadelphia’s Climate in the Early Days

JANUARY 1790 The average or medium temperature of this month was 44 degrees This is the mildest month of January on record. Fogs prevailed very much in the morning but a hot sun soon dispersed them and the mercury often ran up to 70 in the shade at mid day. Boys were often seen swimming in the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. UNPRECEDENTED!!

Profiles in Cowardice

The story starts, as is the case in so many states, with Gov. Mike Beebe's (video link) creation of the Governor's Commission on Global Warming. In most other states where they've been developed, these panels have been fashioned purely by executive fiat. Arkansas's GCGW was authorized also by a law (PDF) to study potential impacts of global warming and ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (the presumed evil behind global temperature uptick). But the GCGW was also given the mandate to "study the scientific data, literature, and research on global warming to determine whether global warming is an immediate threat to the citizens in the State of Arkansas…."

Turns out this area of "study" was only allowed to go so far. As is the standard when the Center for Climate Strategies is granted management control of a state's climate commission (approaching two dozen so far), the prerequisite for CCS to take the job is that no debate of the climate science is allowed. Like the intolerant Al Gore, CCS cannot suffer dissent, flat-earthers, or moonwalk-deniers.

Needless to say, the likelihood that global warming would cause the Arkansas River to flood the William J. Clinton Presidential Library -- or other climate-driven Razorback State catastrophe could-be's -- was never discussed. Instead doom was presumed (PDF) should greenhouse gases continue unabated.

How the world was bullied into silence

One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows. “the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...

Global warming, systemic BBC bias and Earth - The Climate Wars

So, let’s start at the beginning. Stewart explains the purpose of the series. At (1.42) he states: “In this series
I’m going to explore some simple big questions. How do we know the climate’s warming up? How do we
know humans are causing it? And how do we know what’s going to happen next? (Cue in tendentious
footage of storms, sea ice and melodramatic catastrophist music.) As the story of global warming has
unfolded, we’ve learnt of the very nature of scientific truth, and about how that has been falsified,
manipulated, twisted and even bought. ”
At (2.54), this is followed up by the introduction of Stewart’s children on a beach with the reminder that, as a
husband and a father (well, a ‘dad’ actually), he has both a professional and a personal interest in global
warming. Not unrelated to this at (9.31) we have the introduction of Dr. S. Schneider, who at (12.12) is
exonerated from his earlier spectacular failures as a scientific investigator. Was there some purpose in
including Stewart’s meandering reminiscences and his magnanimous absolution of Schneider? The answer,
of course, is “Yes”. These were/are rhetorical propagandist ploys. In contrast, perhaps, to the self-serving
motives of AGW dissenters (a thought as yet unspoken, not that that will last long) they are designed, in the
case of the former, to create in the minds of viewers an impression of altruistic disinterestedness and an
honest quest for truth. In the case of Schneider, the conclusion we are expected to draw is that we have here a
man of intellectual integrity and personal modesty. It would be churlish not to sidestep lightly the weasel
words actually employed, which can be summarised as: “Not my fault! I just paint pictures. Can’t help it, if
somebody else misinterpreted what I said”.
Save to note the depths which the BBC and Dr. Stewart are willing to plumb in order to promote their
propagandist agenda, I will make no further comment about the inclusion of his offspring. Of Dr. Schneider,
let me offer a different and more apposite interpretation, however. This is a man who has made a career, and
much lucre, out of promoting extreme environmentalist claims and, in the process, has demonstrated little
hesitation in hopping from one conveniently passing gravy train to another. Given that the BBC has a legal
as well as a moral obligation to respect its own Editorial Standards, perhaps it should be reminded whence
this gentlemen and his friends come, a stand point which your presenter evidently endorses. “To capture the
public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and....

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years.

Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear

It seems that NASA's James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is at it again. He just can't let the data speak for itself. In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend. (Y-axis = Annual Mean Temperatures in centigrade; X-axis = Year)

New EU President Klaus, Globaloney Critic, Is a 'Figurehead'; Appellation Was Rarely Used on Predecessor Sarkozy

To say that President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is not liked by Euro-elitists is a grand understatement.

European media has generally bent over backwards to give European Union politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels respect and the benefit of the doubt. If there is a voter referendum that enhances EU power, the press is for it, and those in countries like Ireland who reject its advances towards smiley-faced socialism are unenlightened.

Even France's widely disliked Nicolas Sarkozy received favorable treatment from the Europhile press during his 2008 stint as EU President.

That has changed now that Klaus, a fervent advocate of democracy and ardent opponent of statism, whatever its disguises -- including "climate change" -- has taken over that office.

David Charter, Europe correspondent for the UK Times Online, led the charge last Friday (the picture and caption above is from the Times's story page), and reported that things are getting quite testy between Klaus and the Europe uber alles crowd: