Archive for August, 2007
Man-made Global Warming: Consensus or Propaganda
Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway? 
Who Dares Question the Global Warmocaust?
“…But even if CO2 hasn’t caused changes in the past, couldn’t it still be responsible for the recent warming trend? Astrophysicists Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon [9] don’t think so. They believe that the sun has more to do with our climate’s warming than CO2. The astronomers among us will know that the sun goes through a magnetic cycle which runs in approximately eleven year intervals. During this cycle, the amount of energy emitted from the sun varies, along with the strength of the sun’s magnetic field. Scientists have discovered that the sun’s cycle is not completely uniform; some cycles go on for longer than others, resulting in different levels of light intensity and magnetic forces. [10]
Baliunas and Soon explain that “the question [of] how the sun affects the climate is unresolved” [[11]] but some studies suggest that differences in the energy output and magnetism of the sun can have effects on cloud coverage, atmospheric chemistry, and circulation patterns, all of which have very significant impacts on global climate [[12]]. Furthermore, their data shows that global temperatures seem to have a much closer relationship with solar variability than with atmospheric CO2 levels [[13]].
Baliunas and Soon must be mad scientists–watch the videos–they must be crazy!
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search=
For a real nut listen to one of the writers of the IPCC report– John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist .
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search
=So what if he has all those awards, he is just a trouble maker and religious nut: “…1996 Special Award, American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.”1991 Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, NASA Headquarters. …” “I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?
“…With so many researchers in the climatological community apparently convinced of the reality of dangerously rapid man-made climate change, why do I continue to rely so much on the skeptical Christy? Christy is the climatologist who has put together the highly accurate atmospheric temperature data from satellites since 1978. And confidence in his data is bolstered by the fact that they correlate nicely with temperature data from radiosondes, which are a completely independent measure of temperature. Christy’s data show that since 1978 the planet is warming up at a rate of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade. The Arctic, according to Christy’s data, is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet, at a rate of 0.39 per decade. But the Antarctic is cooling by 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.
For the nationalistic, Christy’s satellite data find that the lower 48 states of the U.S. are warming at a rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. If temperatures continue to increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. Not much of a crisis. Richard Lindzen says he’s willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. …”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html
New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story
“…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.
The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. …”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html
They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
National Post’s Deniers series:
Scientists who challenge the climate change debate
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”
“…More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. …”
Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X
End the chill — The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research — The Deniers Part XII
Allegre’s second thoughts — The Deniers XIII
The heat’s in the sun — The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science — The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC — The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us — The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate ‘fluff’ — The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics — The Deniers XIX
Gore’s guru disagreed — The Deniers XX
The ice-core man — The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome — The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic — The Deniers XXIII
“…Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
Could not have said it better:”…Does this imply that we should simply dismiss the work of the many hundreds of scientists saying that humans cause global warming? Of course not. We would be guilty of a double standard if we said that the plausibility of some alternative theory conclusively disproves the mainstream view. And even if the sun really does play the most important role in determining global climate, we can’t conclude that greenhouse gas has been completely uninvolved in causing the current warming trend; we have every reason to believe that it plays at least some role. But it may be wise to reconsider the way we think about the global warming debate. It doesn’t seem like the scientists who question our responsibility for global warming are indefensible skeptics who refuse to acknowledge what is obviously true. Rather, it appears that there is still a lot of research to be done before we can consider this case to be completely closed. Perhaps people like Ellen Goodman should avoid name-calling until they’ve heard all the evidence. …”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/shahar/shahar2.html#_edn11
“Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels.
He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?…”
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
Global Warming: Hot Air or Cool Science?
Professor Bob Carter
James Cook Universityhttp://www.unisa.edu.au/nbe/research/seminars/carter.pdf
There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
Past & Future Climate change – Pt 1of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw
Past & Future Climate Change – Pt 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4mYcrd_18
Past & Future Climate change pt 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUdDLTLXGU
Past & Future Climate Change – pt 4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiJyr0TK6E
The Past and Future of Climate
David Archibald
“…What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the
Earth’s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the
next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling
before we plunge into the next ice age. In the near term, the Earth will experience a
significant cooling due to a quieter Sun.
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is so minuscule that the effect cannot be measured from
year to year, and even from generation to generation.
Our generation has bathed in the warm glow of a benign, giving Sun, but the next will
suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007
“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it.
So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
by David Holland
“…Unless all important studies are independently verified, it cannot be said that the late 20th century warming was particularly exceptional. And especially so given that no global warming at all has occurred since 1998, a period of eight years over which atmospheric CO2 increased by 15 ppm (4%). It is crystal clear that natural causes are a possible explanation for the entire instrumental temperature record to date. Indeed, beyond that and in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the appropriate null hypothesis for climate research is that the changes in climate that we measure are a result of natural forcing agents unless and until it can be demonstrated otherwise. So far as I am aware, there is no empirical evidence published in refereed journals that invalidates this null hypothesis. …”
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf
You say consensus, I say propaganda.
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
~ Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period Go Global
More and more scientific papers are challenging the so-called “consensus” on global warming being caused by man.
The following web sites present the findings of these paper and how they relate to the man-made global warming theory.
A good review of the literature from downunder:
Little Ice Age (Regional: Australia/New Zealand) — Summary
“Climate alarmists generally contend that the Little Ice Age was localized to countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, because if there had been a global Little Ice Age, there would have had to have been a global Medieval Warm Period to help define it; and if there was a global Medieval Warm Period that was as warm as, or warmer than, the Current Warm Period, there would be no valid reason for claiming that the warmth of the modern era is the result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for the air’s CO2 concentration during both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period was fairly constant and fully 100 ppm less than what it is today, which suggests that since something other than a rise and fall in the air’s CO2 content was responsible for producing both medieval warmth and subsequent Little Ice Age cold, that same something else may well have been – and likely was – responsible for the warming of the past century that brought us out of the Little Ice Age. Hence, we continuously scan the scientific literature for evidence related to this topic; and we here report what we have learned about the subject from studies conducted in Australia and New Zealand. …”
“…In conclusion, we suggest that for climate alarmists who claim the Little Ice Age was a less-than-global phenomenon restricted to lands bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, it must be embarrassing to see research papers, such as this ones above, that document the existence of this multi-century cold spell in lands as far away as New Zealand, and to additionally learn that the Little Ice Age was largely synchronous in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. One would think, therefore, that it would do them good to admit the obvious about this matter; but they can’t. Why? Because it is the Little Ice Age that makes 20th-century global warming look so dramatic, and which allows them to claim it must be unnatural and caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, when in reality it is but the recovery of the planet from perhaps the coldest period of the current interglacial to a level of warmth that has been experienced several times before, such as during the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago and the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago, when there was 100 ppm less CO2 in the air than there is currently.”
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/a/summaries/australiaiceage.jsp
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
“The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials. …”
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/mission.jsp
Tropical Seas Sink Hockey Stick
“…The latest headache for “stick” supporters is an article by Alicia Newton of the University of South Carolina and two associates published in Geophysical Research Letters. Attention is placed on the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool located in the waters of Indonesia. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool does not stay in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. The authors note that “The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) is one of the warmest regions in the modern oceans, and consequently, air-sea interactions in this region strongly influence global heat and water vapor exchange between the ocean and atmosphere.” What happens there substantially impacts the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle on time frames of 5 to 10 years and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on the time scale of decades. Teleconnections with ENSO and PDO ultimately mean that variations in Indo-Pacific Warm Pool impact variations in climate in many parts of the world.
Newton et al. analyzed a core collected aboard the Marion Dufrense in 1998 drilled at 5°12.07 S, 117°29.20 E from a water depth of 1185 m. They note that “the average Holocene sedimentation rate at this location is well over 100 cm per 1,000 years, making it an ideal core for high resolution studies of hydrographic changes in the Makassar Strait.” The core contains the fossil remains of planktonic foraminifera, and the fossil shells can be tested for levels of magnesium, calcium, and oxygen 18 isotope. These chemical properties of the shells are related to sea surface temperature and salinity of the water (which is related to rainfall levels). Incredibly, the fossil remains of the planktonic foraminifera preserve a history of climate in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool area over the past 1,000 years.
Regarding sea surface temperature (SST) and sea surface salinity (SSS), Newton et al. report “The SST and SSS estimates for the southern Makassar Strait primarily range from 28 to 30°C and 33.5 to 36.0, respectively, over the entire time period. The average modern summer SST and SSS are 29°C and 35, respectively. The period from ~1000 to 1400 AD is marked by the warmest temperatures and highest salinities. During this time interval, the average SSTs were between 29–30°C (mean of 29.4°C) and salinities fluctuated between ~34–35.8 (mean of 34.9), and are very similar to present day conditions in this area. This 400-year long period of warm temperatures and high salinities is equivalent in age to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a time when radiative forcing was high.” In other words, the sea surface temperatures in the Makassar Strait were higher in the Medieval Warm Period than they are today. If nothing else, the Medieval Warm Period stands out loud and clear in the temperature reconstruction (see below).
Figure 2. Reconstructed sea surface temperatures from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool
With respect to the Little Ice Age, Newton et al. report “Specifically, the SST record shows a distinct cooling trend beginning at ~1400 AD and lasting for several hundred years, a period equivalent in time to the Little Ice Age (LIA). In particular, the lowest temperatures (~28°C) occur around 1700 A.D., during the period of reduced solar intensity known as the Maunder Minimum.” Further, they write “These results clearly indicate a climatic cooling during the LIA that extended well outside the higher northern latitudes. In fact, the recognition that that tropical Pacific warm pool temperatures were as much as 1.5°C cooler during the LIA must be considered an important factor itself in establishing what caused the climate to cool as it did. …”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/23/tropical-seas-sink-hockey-stick/
Are We on the Brink of a ‘New Little Ice Age?’
“When most of us think about Ice Ages, we imagine a slow transition into a colder climate on long time scales. Indeed, studies of the past million years indicate a repeatable cycle of Earth’s climate going from warm periods (“interglacial”, as we are experiencing now) to glacial conditions.
The period of these shifts are related to changes in the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis (41,000 years), changes in the orientation of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, called the “precession of the equinoxes” (23,000 years), and to changes in the shape (more round or less round) of the elliptical orbit (100,000 years). The theory that orbital shifts caused the waxing and waning of ice ages was first pointed out by James Croll in the 19th Century and developed more fully by Milutin Milankovitch in 1938.
undefinedundefined Ice age conditions generally occur when all of the above conspire to create a minimum of summer sunlight on the arctic regions of the earth, although the Ice Age cycle is global in nature and occurs in phase in both hemispheres. It profoundly affects distribution of ice over lands and ocean, atmospheric temperatures and circulation, and ocean temperatures and circulation at the surface and at great depth.
Since the end of the present interglacial and the slow march to the next Ice Age may be several millennia away, why should we care? In fact, won’t the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO²) and other greenhouse gasses possibly ameliorate future changes? …”
“…Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.
The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.
The lack of periodicity and the present failure to isolate a stable forcing mechanism À la Milankovitch, has prompted much scientific debate about the cause of the Younger Dryas and other millennial scale events. Indeed, the Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state.
A whole volume that reviews the evidence for abrupt climate change and speculates on its mechanisms was published recently by an expert group commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences in the US. This very readable compilation contains a breadth and depth of discussion that we cannot hope to match here. [ “Abrupt Climage Change,” National Academy Press, 2002]. …”
Historical data examined by Levitus et al (Science, 1999) shows changes in the ocean heat content (to depths of 3000 meters) to be slowly increasing with substantial decadal time scale variations related to climate variability. The sequestering of heat deep into the ocean, mitigates global warming of the atmosphere. Deep heat increases reflect changes in properties of deep water formed at high latitude in winter.
[back]
Last updated: July 5, 2007
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007
“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it.
So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
Global Warming: Hot Air or Cool Science?
Professor Bob Carter
James Cook Universityhttp://www.unisa.edu.au/nbe/research/seminars/carter.pdf
Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress
“…So where does this all leave us? Since the early days of multi-proxy reconstructions a decade ago the amount of suitable data has definitely increased, and so many of the issues related to specific proxies are becoming increasingly unimportant. As the amount of data grows, the picture of climate in medieval times will likely become clearer. What seems even more likely is that the structure of the climate anomalies will start to emerge. The simple question of whether the medieval period was warm or cold is not particularly interesting – given the uncertainty in the forcings (solar and volcanic) and climate sensitivity, any conceivable temperature anomaly (which remember is being measured in tenths of a degree) is unlikely to constrain anything. “
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstrcutions/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )Colony Collapse Disorder–Atlas Shrugged?
|
Do you enjoy eating fruits, nuts, and vegetables.Forget about global warming.Start worrying about CCD–Colony Collapse Disorder.
Barlett Boo Boos–Boortz Blasts Back
Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?
BY BRUCE BARTLETT“…For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists’ idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government’s revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS. Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder’s Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%. In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523
FAIRTAX, FLAWED TAX?
By Nealz Boortz
“…This assertion – that the FairTax was developed by the Church of Scientology – is flat-out false. I suspect that Bartlett allowed someone else to do his research for him on this issue; someone with an agenda. Perhaps he blindly accepted some information from a Washington insider, perhaps a K Street denizen who fears the loss of power and income should the FairTax become law.
What Bartlett did was very simple, and astonishingly careless. He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.
Now CATS did have a plan for a national retail sales tax, but it was in no way connected with Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) and the FairTax. I was familiar with the CATS program. I had them on my radio repeatedly. As I’ve told you, I’ve been interested in this idea of replacing the income tax with the sales tax for some time.
The CATS idea was simply to do away with income taxes and replace them with a 17% sales tax. Payroll taxes would stay with you, as would many other federal tax levies. As you can see, this is substantially different from the program offered by the FairTax.
I’m going to lead you to several articles here. The first link will take you a document detailing the history of CATS. If you read this carefully you will see absolutely no reference to the FairTax. There is no reference to Congressman John Linder or H.R. 25, the FairTax Act. All of the references are to CATS and their own idea of a national retail sales tax.
Moving right along here, next you have a list of articles detailing the connection between CATS and Scientology. That’s right. It was CATS, not Americans for Fair Taxation with the strong connection to Scientology. In fact, here’s another link setting for Scientology front groups. Scroll down the list a bit and you’ll see CATS! You will not see AFFT or the FairTax mentioned.
The people responsible for creating AFFT and the Fair Tax are Houston Businessmen Leo Linbek and Robert McNair. Neither one of these people are Scientologists. These men and their associates raised over $20 million for a study on finding an alternative to the federal income tax. That research was conducted by a coalition of market and academic experts from places such as MIT and Harvard, none of whom were associated in any way with Scientology. From that research came the FairTax.
Just an interesting historical note: When the research for a new tax system was commissioned with the $20 million raised by Linbeck, McNair and their associates, they made a commitment to accept whatever findings the research developed, strongly suspecting that their efforts were going to lead to the endorsement of some sort of a flat tax. The market and academic researchers came forth with an idea for a national retail sales tax instead, and the FairTax was born.
Bruce Bartlett owes Leo Linbeck, Robert McNair and the hundreds of thousands of FairTax volunteers across an America an apology. I suspect that apology will be forthcoming before too many days pass. …”
“…There were many other inaccuracies in Bartlett’s column. As you know Congressman Linder and I, with the help of a brilliant analyst named Rob Woodall, are busy writing another FairTax book that will address virtually every meaningful criticism you may have heard or read. In Reader’s Digest form, here are some quick response to other charges by Bartlett:
Bartlett jumps right into the middle of this nonsense over what the real tax rate is; 23 percent or 30 percent. He correctly points out that we don’t quote the FairTax rate the way conventional sales taxes are quoted. The reason is simple; the FairTax will replace the embedded taxes and already exist in every item or service we purchase; and secondly, the FairTax will replace the income tax. Both the embedded taxes in the prices of what we buy now and the income taxes we pay now are inclusive taxes. We’re replacing inclusive taxes with inclusive taxes.
It’s so very simple: When you see a lamp on the shelf marked $100, you will pay $100 for that lamp when you get to the checkout. You will receive a receipt which shows that $23 of the $100 you have paid represents the FairTax. You do the math for yourself, but every time I work it out it comes to 23%
Bartlett also joins other critics in another blatant falsehood about the FairTax. Here’s a sentence from his column: “If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.” In another paragraph Bartlett also says “Imagine paying 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your next house.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If a product costs $1 at retail …. It costs $1, with the FairTax already included. This is so easy to understand, you almost get the idea that people are intentionally trying to confuse the facts here. That $1 item Bartlett is referring to costs $1 at retail today! But instead of including the FairTax in that price, all of the embedded taxes from every business and individual involved in bringing that item to the marketplace are included. You remove one, you add the other. And that bit about 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your new home? Another lie. The embedded taxes are so high on the price of a new home today that when they are removed and the FairTax added, that home could be a percent or two cheaper! Come on, Bruce. This really isn’t that hard. Let’s try to spell this out plainly for everyone:
| The 23 percent FairTax is not added to the price of everything you buy … it is already included in the price of everything you will buy, just as the embedded taxes are included today. You remove one, you add the other. …” |
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=198361
Fair Tax – for our future! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di2em2S25qM&mode=related&search=
John Stossel speaks to the Fair Tax Rally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRN-Lei0ow
Fair Tax.org
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Fair Tax Foundation
http://www.fairtax.net/aboutus.htm
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
The Real Meal: Bananas and The Nut
Food for thought:
The Real Deal: Usufruct and The GorillaDr. James E. Hansen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansenhttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
“…Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.Court jesters serve as a distraction, a distraction from usufruct. Usufruct is the matter that the captains wish to deny, the matter that they do not want their children to know about. They realize that if there is no ‘gorilla’, then usufruct is not an important issue for them. So, with the help of jesters, they deny the existence of the gorilla. There is no danger of melting the Arctic, of destabilizing the West Antarctic ice sheet, of increasing hydrologic extremes, more droughts and stronger forest fires on one hand and heavier downpours and floods on the other, threats to the fresh water supplies of huge numbers of people in different parts of the globe. “Whew! It is lucky that, as our jesters show, these are just imaginary concerns. We captains of industry can continue with business-as-usual, we do not need to face the tough problem of how to maintain profits without destroying our legacy in our children’s eyes. …”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdfhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884649/posts Hansen and the “Destruction of Creation”
By Steve McIntyre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
“Hansen has followed up his “Lights Out Upstairs” outburst with another outburst dismissing critics as “court jesters” with whom he will have no truck. (Lights Out is now cited on the NASA website.) His new jeremiad re-iterated the position of NASA spokesman Gavin Schmidt that U.S. errors “didn’t matter” because the U.S. was only 2% of the earth’s surface. Today I’ll take a look back at Hansen et al 1999 and, especially Hansen et al 2001, the latter entitled “A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change” and being entirely devoted to coaxing a few-tenths of temperature change out of the U.S. record, a matter now said to be unimportant. Hansen also linked interest in the NASA computer programming errors to somehow acquiescing in the “destruction of Creation”. …”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1946#more-1946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
“Here’s a discussion of replication policy posted up in the relatively early days of the blog, which I’ve re-posted in light of NASA spokesman Gavin Schmidt’s attempts to justify Hansen’s refusal to provide the source code used in his temperature calculations. It seems that these calculations are important enough to prompt a concern over the “destruction of Creation” but apparently only the elect will be permitted to see these calculations. The discussion of replication is based on experience in economics and social science unrelated to the present controversy but fully applicable to it….”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1952#more-1952
Science requires replication of results and replication requires the availability of both data and the computer programs used to obtain the results of an experiment or simulation. A good example is the requirements of the American Economic Association:
“…Our policies differ somewhat for econometric and simulation papers, and for experimental papers.
http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data_availability_policy.html
http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/submissions.html
Well comrade Hansen, someone is running a disinformation campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUohLJ8bMxc&mode=related&search=
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007
“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it.
So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
Global Warming: Hot Air or Cool Science?
Professor Bob Carter
James Cook Universityhttp://www.unisa.edu.au/nbe/research/seminars/carter.pdfCare for a banana or do you prefer nuts?
Fusion Friendly Future
Will your Windows 2050 computer be powered by fusion?
The Search for Ultimate Energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woNnR4Ps0Iw&mode=related&search=
Nuclear Fusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDAZsPkTkMM&mode=related&search=
ITER- The Way to Fusion Power 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQE-YIzDpQc
ITER- The Way to Fusion Power 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF7xRYZZ7ME&NR=1
ITER Starmakers – The nuclear future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOiGeFoIKek
ITER R&D Projectshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MoPydT_Zrg&mode=related&search=
ITER Assembly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql82jvNRIXU&mode=related&search=
Fusion Powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Fusion Linkshttp://www.fusion.org.uk/links/index.htm
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Carbon Offset Videos
The Cheat Neutral video illustrates the foolishness of the whole idea of carbon offsets from the green perspective.
Cheat Neutral
Cheat Neutral does have a web site:
WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS?
Carbon offset: Music to green ears
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Facing Fundamental Facts
I am catching up on my summer reading and ran across an excellent and highly recommended book:
Two excerpts are worth quoting in full:
“…Whatever they may believe about global warming, it’s time now for
all serious greens, left or right, to face up to three fundamental facts.
First, an economic fact. Demand for electricity has been rising without
interruption since Edison invented the light bulb over a century ago.
Short of some massive economic convulsion that drastically shrinks the
economy, it will go on rising. Total U.S. electricity consumption will
increase another 20 to 30 percent, at least, over the next ten years.
Economic growth marches hand in hand with increased consumption of
electricity–always, everywhere, without significant exception in the
annals of modern industrial history.
Second, a political fact. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will let
the grid go cold. Not even if that means burning yet another additional
400 million more tons of coal. Not even if that means, in turn, melting
the ice caps and putting much of Bangladesh under water. No governor
or president aspires to become the next chief executive recalled from
office when the lights go out.
Third, a technological fact. Coal, uranium, and gas plants generate
gargantuan amounts of power in very small amounts of space, which
means they really can and do get built within reach of the population
centers that need the power. Sun and wind come nowhere close.
Earnest though they are, the people who maintain otherwise are the
people who brought us 400 million more tons of coal a year. …
…The next five years are set; all we can usefully discuss now is what
will come after. Will it be still more fossil fuel, a good half (or more)
of it coal? Or more uranium?
“Neither,” the most passionate greens will respond. And from
West Virginia to Wyoming, coal miners will quietly cheer them on.
“Neither” has been the official green line since 1980, when Big Coal was
400 million tons a year poorer than it is today. What they ought to do
is part company with Hollywood and reach some sensible political
accommodation with the nuclear industry in case their global warming
projections turn out to be right. …”
“…Enough of everything. Everything that matters about energy comes
down to hot-cold cycles, and structures that pluck their order from the
hot-cold interface. Megawatt power supplies feed microwatt junctions
to propel logic through semiconductors. Hot feeds into cold to propel
motion in steam engines. And the white heat of the sun pours out into
the black cold of deep space to propel life on a tiny jewel of a planet
that spins on its axis at just the right point between the between the
inferno and oblivion. Perhaps these seeming antitheses are only
manifestations of a single, higher logic. Perhaps the logic and power
are really one and the same. Perhaps they appear different only
because we arbitarily divide our own, human-centered conceptions of
existence between heavy and light, body and mind, flesh and spirit.
At the time of creation there was infinite power in zero-space and
thus, perhaps, infinite logic in the one place and time. …”
Background Artilcles and Videos
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil
MYTH: The World Is Running Out of Oil (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/st…
Alberta’s Oil Sands: Facts and stats
http://oilsands.alberta.ca/519.cfm
Despite Popular Belief, The World is Not Running Out of Oil, Scientist Says (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…
Its a myth that the worlds oil is running out (The Times, UK)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol…
Oil, Oil Everywhere . . . (The Wall Street Journal)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?…
Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells (The New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/bus…
Plenty of oil left in the global tank (The Times, UK)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol…
The ‘Peak Oil’ Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful (Seeking Alpha)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/82236…
The World Has Plenty of Oil (The Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_… Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 111 so far )
Global Warming Books
Suggested books, a review and article on global warming worth read:
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud by Lawrence Solomon
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed
Book TV: Chris Horner “Red Hot Lies”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW-pMcf6WX8
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Yearsby Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2
Global Warming: A Guide to the Science Edited by Willie Soon
The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
by Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten, Kenneth H. Shatten
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
by Patrick J. Michaels
Patrick J. Michaels is research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association’s worldwide competition for public service writing, and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year,” awarded by the Association of American Geographers
Fred Singer summary is worth posting in full:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
March 19, 2007
S. Fred Singer
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is “unusual” by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
- Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
- Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
- Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
- Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate(The Independent Institute, 1997).
“Hot Talk, Cold Science is immensely enjoyable. In assessing the possibility of global warming from increasing greenhouse gases, Dr. Singer examines diverse theoretical and empirical studies and presents the results in an accessible and highly readable book. By carefully weighing the evidence, Singer shows that the case for significant and catastrophic global warming remains unverified. On the contrary, the climate record to date manifests at most a small human-caused global warming. Furthermore, there are gross gaps in knowledge about climate change science that prevent present computer simulations from yielding reliable projections of future climate change. Given the lack of knowledge on all the relevant causes of climate change and the slow pace of projected warming by the computer simulations, Singer argues a cautious course of adaptation and cost effective mitigation.”
—SALLIE BALIUNAS, Astrophysicist, Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Observatory; Deputy Director, Mount Wilson Observatoryhttp://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42
Fighting climate ‘fluff’
Physicist Freeman Dyson knows from long experience that models containing numerous fudge factors are worthless
“…The “fluff,” Prof. Dyson explains, comes from climate-change models that predict all manner of catastrophe. The models count for naught as predictive tools.
“I have studied their climate models and know what they can do,” Prof. Dyson says. “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are “parameterized” — incorporated by reference to their measured effects.
“They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere,” he states.
Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his career, in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had built the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his team of graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed like a remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded with Fermi’s actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson’s dismay, Fermi quickly dismissed his model
In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, ‘How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?’ I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, ‘Four.’ He said, ‘I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’ With that, the conversation was over. …”
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e
Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Hardcover
Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
Dixy Lee Ray
Cool it – The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide To Global Warming
Bjørn Lomborg
“…Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world’s temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent. …”
http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Bjørn Lomborg
http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the_skeptical_enviromentalist/
Maunder Minimum & the Variable Sun-Earth Connection
Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling
Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions VS. Climate Reality
by Robert C. C. Balling
Global Warming: The Rest of the Story
by Gerd R. Weber
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition
by Sherwood B. Idso
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 77 so far )Global Warming Videos
Part One: Sprigg on ClimateGate at EUEC
Part Two: Sprigg on ClimateGate at EUEC
Part Three: Sprigg on ClimateGate at EUEC
Richard Lindzen at International Conference on Climate Change
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)
Why Climate Models Are Wrong
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6
Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Why the IPCC models are wrong – Part 1
Why the IPCC models are wrong – Part 2
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Apocalypse? No! – Why there is no Global Warming Crisis
The Media & the global warming Hype – John Stossell
Don’t Panic – Flaws In Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts
Great five part series of videos on climate change by scientists actually doing research on the subject:
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 1/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 2/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 3/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 4/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 5/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 6/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 7/9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 8/9)
Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1
Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 2
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4
Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 1 of 5
David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 1 of 3
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 2 of 3
Robert Felix – Global Warming Global Cooling? 3 of 3
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
(2 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: BJORN LOMBORG
(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 1
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 2
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 3
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 4
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 5
What is Normal? Climate Video Part 6
NASA | Taking Earth’s Temperature
Global Warming – what do the numbers show.
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 1/3
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 2/3
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: Part 3/3
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 1/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 2/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 3/4
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 4/4
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt3
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt4
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt5
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt7
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt8
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt9
Global Warming: An Unsettled Science
Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Al Gore Snowjob
Another Global Warming Hoax exposed
“A prominent scientist who’s followed the science of global warming from the beginning, Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are. He suggests that the relatively simple solution of land use management could potentially give us the ability to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any level we’d like, and there’s no need to stop burning coal and oil.”Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of 2 Bogus Climate Models
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1 of 2 Bogus Climate Models
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2 of 2 Stratospheric Cooling
Freeman John Dyson”…The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate….”[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62
Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment
Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 2)
Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 3)
Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 4)
Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 5)
