The title of this article is misleading. Prof. Freitas is not denying the "greenhouse effect", he simply (and rightly) doubts that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant effect. He is a climate scientist and knows the issue from all sides. One of his statements is worthy of remembering. It is: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
Also please note that the following statements were heard in a courtroom, which is where the debate about the causes of climate change should be exposed.
Peter
Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
Professor denies greenhouse effect
By Rosie Manins
Created 30/01/2009 - 05:00
Hugh Rennie Theories of climate change were challenged during an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.
Sediment concerns raised [2]
As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing.
Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.
"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.
"People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.
"One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.
Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically and economically motivated instrument to deal with a perceived problem".
"I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware of," he said.
Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, about an article published in The New Zealand Herald in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change.
"You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].
"Would you accept that any selection of generation which avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de Freitas.
Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.
"You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position I would not otherwise take," he said.
Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.
"The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact," he said.
In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous.
"There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot," he said.
Day 26Panel: Environment Court judge Jon Jackson, commissioner Alex Sutherland, commissioner Heather McConachy, and deputy commissioner Ken Fletcher.
Yesterday: Otago Regional Council water resource scientist Matthew Dale, of Dunedin; climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland; Electricity Commission director of transmission John Gleadow, of Wellington.
Scheduled for today: Mr Gleadow will continue to give evidence.
Quote of the day: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Source URL (retrieved on 01/02/2009 - 07:56): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Global Warming OR Cooling: Which Is It?
Probably more important than whether the Earth is warming or cooling is WHAT causes this continual climate change? We can see and document many climate change episodes in recorded history, which means within human experience and our ability to document such events. Then consider that these climate changes occurred long before there were many people and before we began using much "fossil fuel", (i.e. oil, coal, and gas) and emitting its "evil" carbon dioxide.
The people who do not understand or accept this reality, and this must include all believers in man-caused global warming, are simply misinformed, either through a lack of education or because they have been purposely deceived.
Peter
Friday, January 30, 2009
BELLAMY/DUCHAMP: World is getting colder
David J. Bellamy and Mark Duchamp
OP-ED: (source)
After the wet and cold centuries of the Little Ice Age (around 1550-1850 A.D.), the world's climate recuperated some warmth, but did not replicate the balmy period known as the Middle Age Warm Period (around 800-1300 A.D.), when the margins of Greenland were green and England had vineyards.
Climate began to cool again after World War II, for about 30 years. This is undisputed. The cooling occurred at a time when emissions of C02 were rising sharply from the reconstruction effort and from unprecedented development. It is important to realize that.
By 1978 it had started to warm again, to everybody's relief. But two decades later, after the temperature peaked in 1998 under the influence of El Nino, climate stopped warming for eight years; and in 2007 entered a cooling phase marked by lower solar radiation and a reversal of the cycles of warm ocean temperature in the Atlantic and the Pacific. And here again, it is important to note that this new cooling period is occurring concurrently with an acceleration in CO2 emissions, caused by the emergence of two industrial giants: China and India.
To anyone analyzing this data with common sense, it is obvious that factors other than CO2 emissions are ruling the climate. And the same applies to other periods of the planet's history. Al Gore, in his famous movie "The Inconvenient Truth," had simply omitted to say that for the past 420,000 years that he cited as an example, rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere always followed increases in global temperature by at least 800 years. It means that CO2 can't possibly be the cause of the warming cycles.
So, if it's not CO2, what is it that makes the world's temperature periodically rise and fall? The obvious answer is the sun, and sea currents in a subsidiary manner.
The tilt of Earth, the shape of Earth's orbit (distance to the sun), and Earth's "wobble" as it turns around the sun are all important factors in the cyclical recurrence of ice ages and interglacial periods. It has been observed that ice ages last about 100,000 years, and warm interglacials only 12,000. And within these warm periods, variations in solar activity cause shorter periods of less-pronounced warming and cooling.
There is no way to know for sure if the present cooling period will last several decades or 100,000 years. Russian scientists have just warned that a fully-blown ice age is not to be ruled out, as about 12,000 years have elapsed since the end of the last one.
Entering a new ice age would be a disaster for humanity: billions of people could die from lack of food, from the cold, and from the collapse of the world economy, social strife, war, etc.
And if what's ahead of us is only a little ice age, the consequences would still be pretty dire. World food reserves are already low, and we can barely feed the current population of the planet. Surfaces of arable land used for bio-fuels and biomass are increasing. Cool and wet summers would cause crop failures as they did in the Little Ice Age (as a result, starving Parisians had taken to the streets, soon sending their king to the guillotine). Winter frost would also bring its share of misery, destroying fruits and vegetables on a large scale.
Let's just hope we'll only have a few years of cooling, and that another warming period will follow. But it may be wishful thinking. In any case, there will be hardship during the cold cycle, whatever its length.
As President Obama takes office, and as the European Union is about to waste one trillion euros to de-carbonize the economy (in a bid to stop nonexistent man-made global warming) they would be well-advised to perform a reality check on what's currently happening to the climate. Talking to independent scientists about the positive properties of CO2 (plant food that enhances crops) would also be a good idea.
If they don't, we may be in for mass starvation. And let's not forget that the world population is increasing by about 78 million every year.
David J. Bellamy is a professor at three British universities and an officer in several conservation organizations. Mark Duchamp, a retired businessman, has investigated global- warming theory and written more than 100 articles.
The people who do not understand or accept this reality, and this must include all believers in man-caused global warming, are simply misinformed, either through a lack of education or because they have been purposely deceived.
Peter
Friday, January 30, 2009
BELLAMY/DUCHAMP: World is getting colder
David J. Bellamy and Mark Duchamp
OP-ED: (source)
After the wet and cold centuries of the Little Ice Age (around 1550-1850 A.D.), the world's climate recuperated some warmth, but did not replicate the balmy period known as the Middle Age Warm Period (around 800-1300 A.D.), when the margins of Greenland were green and England had vineyards.
Climate began to cool again after World War II, for about 30 years. This is undisputed. The cooling occurred at a time when emissions of C02 were rising sharply from the reconstruction effort and from unprecedented development. It is important to realize that.
By 1978 it had started to warm again, to everybody's relief. But two decades later, after the temperature peaked in 1998 under the influence of El Nino, climate stopped warming for eight years; and in 2007 entered a cooling phase marked by lower solar radiation and a reversal of the cycles of warm ocean temperature in the Atlantic and the Pacific. And here again, it is important to note that this new cooling period is occurring concurrently with an acceleration in CO2 emissions, caused by the emergence of two industrial giants: China and India.
To anyone analyzing this data with common sense, it is obvious that factors other than CO2 emissions are ruling the climate. And the same applies to other periods of the planet's history. Al Gore, in his famous movie "The Inconvenient Truth," had simply omitted to say that for the past 420,000 years that he cited as an example, rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere always followed increases in global temperature by at least 800 years. It means that CO2 can't possibly be the cause of the warming cycles.
So, if it's not CO2, what is it that makes the world's temperature periodically rise and fall? The obvious answer is the sun, and sea currents in a subsidiary manner.
The tilt of Earth, the shape of Earth's orbit (distance to the sun), and Earth's "wobble" as it turns around the sun are all important factors in the cyclical recurrence of ice ages and interglacial periods. It has been observed that ice ages last about 100,000 years, and warm interglacials only 12,000. And within these warm periods, variations in solar activity cause shorter periods of less-pronounced warming and cooling.
There is no way to know for sure if the present cooling period will last several decades or 100,000 years. Russian scientists have just warned that a fully-blown ice age is not to be ruled out, as about 12,000 years have elapsed since the end of the last one.
Entering a new ice age would be a disaster for humanity: billions of people could die from lack of food, from the cold, and from the collapse of the world economy, social strife, war, etc.
And if what's ahead of us is only a little ice age, the consequences would still be pretty dire. World food reserves are already low, and we can barely feed the current population of the planet. Surfaces of arable land used for bio-fuels and biomass are increasing. Cool and wet summers would cause crop failures as they did in the Little Ice Age (as a result, starving Parisians had taken to the streets, soon sending their king to the guillotine). Winter frost would also bring its share of misery, destroying fruits and vegetables on a large scale.
Let's just hope we'll only have a few years of cooling, and that another warming period will follow. But it may be wishful thinking. In any case, there will be hardship during the cold cycle, whatever its length.
As President Obama takes office, and as the European Union is about to waste one trillion euros to de-carbonize the economy (in a bid to stop nonexistent man-made global warming) they would be well-advised to perform a reality check on what's currently happening to the climate. Talking to independent scientists about the positive properties of CO2 (plant food that enhances crops) would also be a good idea.
If they don't, we may be in for mass starvation. And let's not forget that the world population is increasing by about 78 million every year.
David J. Bellamy is a professor at three British universities and an officer in several conservation organizations. Mark Duchamp, a retired businessman, has investigated global- warming theory and written more than 100 articles.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Debates On Global Warming, Politics, The Environment And More
Visit this location on the internet: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=781
Here is a comment I just posted. Some of the discussions can become quite heated, so beware.
Peter
WeatherRusty,
Thanks for your honest and sincere attempt to answer my question about why there are so many global warming skeptics among meteorologists. And I knew you were a meteorologist. But I also wonder about so many other skeptical scientists who study other aspects of the Earth and the universe and understand the scientific process. What they see is the radical alarmism, the blatant phony hypocrisy of people like Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other what are called "limousine liberals".
All these other scientists know a great deal about science. They may not know the computer codes for the climate models that seem to be kept so secret, but secrecy and exaggeration have no place in science. That is salesmanship and politics. They see through the hype and it makes them skeptical and suspicious. Scientists are trained to be questioning and doubting.
For example, I recently asked a geologist acquaintance if he was "skeptical" of man-caused global warming. Take my word for it if you will, but he is one of the most experienced, well educated, and intelligent geologists, who are after all, "Earth Scientists" that I have known. He said he is "more than skeptical". He said he didn't believe a bit of it. The same holds true for every geologist I encounter and discuss this with.
And if you don't think these geologists don't know the "astoundingly simple" physics, or chemistry, or mathematics you talk about, I say you are wrong. In fact, I could make a case for many geologists knowing more and having a far more realistic grasp of Earth's climate changes than any so-called computer-modeling "climatologist".
To listen to Al Gore on this issue is totally absurd. To have him testify before a Congressional Committee on this issue is ludicrous; to have our politicians, or anyone for that matter, take him seriously is dangerous; and to pass laws costing billions based on his ideas is insanity.
Here is a comment I just posted. Some of the discussions can become quite heated, so beware.
Peter
WeatherRusty,
Thanks for your honest and sincere attempt to answer my question about why there are so many global warming skeptics among meteorologists. And I knew you were a meteorologist. But I also wonder about so many other skeptical scientists who study other aspects of the Earth and the universe and understand the scientific process. What they see is the radical alarmism, the blatant phony hypocrisy of people like Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other what are called "limousine liberals".
All these other scientists know a great deal about science. They may not know the computer codes for the climate models that seem to be kept so secret, but secrecy and exaggeration have no place in science. That is salesmanship and politics. They see through the hype and it makes them skeptical and suspicious. Scientists are trained to be questioning and doubting.
For example, I recently asked a geologist acquaintance if he was "skeptical" of man-caused global warming. Take my word for it if you will, but he is one of the most experienced, well educated, and intelligent geologists, who are after all, "Earth Scientists" that I have known. He said he is "more than skeptical". He said he didn't believe a bit of it. The same holds true for every geologist I encounter and discuss this with.
And if you don't think these geologists don't know the "astoundingly simple" physics, or chemistry, or mathematics you talk about, I say you are wrong. In fact, I could make a case for many geologists knowing more and having a far more realistic grasp of Earth's climate changes than any so-called computer-modeling "climatologist".
To listen to Al Gore on this issue is totally absurd. To have him testify before a Congressional Committee on this issue is ludicrous; to have our politicians, or anyone for that matter, take him seriously is dangerous; and to pass laws costing billions based on his ideas is insanity.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Al Gore Keeps Spewing Out The Lies And Deception
An opinion piece from my favorite climate scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer. Do a search here for more of his educational and insightful articles.
Peter
Al Gore’s Propaganda
Written by Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Not a GW believer? How unpatriotic!
The methods used by global warming alarmists to convince you that more carbon dioxide is going to ruin the Earth are increasingly laced with insults and attacks directed toward anyone who might disagree with them. For instance, one of the many intellectually lazy (& false) claims is that I am paid by Big Oil.
Mr. Gore’s tactics have been a little more subtle, and reminiscent of propaganda methods which have proved to be effective throughout history at influencing public opinion. One should keep in mind that his main scientific adviser, NASA’s James Hansen, has the most extreme views of any climate researcher when it comes to predicting a global warming induced Armageddon.
Listed below are ten propaganda techniques I have excerpted from Wikipedia. Beneath each are one or more examples of Mr. Gore’s rhetoric as he has attempted to goad the rest of us into reducing our CO2 emissions. Except where indicated, most quotes are from his testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, March 21, 2007. (Mr. Gore is scheduled to testify again tomorrow, January 28, 2009, before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee…if the cold and snowy weather doesn’t cause them to reschedule.)
Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.
“I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”
Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. Also, Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited.
“Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is unequivocal. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause.”
“The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.” (from An Inconvenient Truth)
Bandwagon: Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking”. Also, Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.
“Today, I am here to deliver more than a half million messages to Congressasking for real action on global warming. More than 420 Mayors have nowadopted Kyoto-style commitments in their cities and have urged strong federal action. The evangelical and faith communities have begun to take the lead, calling for measures to protect God’s creation. The State of California, under a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature, passed strong, economy wide legislation mandating cuts in carbon dioxide. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have passed renewable energy standards for the electricity sector.”
Flag-waving: An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. Also, Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
“After all, we have taken on problems of this scope before. When England and then America and our allies rose to meet the threat of global Fascism, together we won two wars simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific.”
Ad Hominem attacks: A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. Also Demonizing the “enemy”: Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman.
“You know, 15 percent of people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the Earth is flat. They get together on Saturday night and party with the global-warming deniers.” (October 24, 2006, Seattle University)
Appeal to Prejudice: Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
“And to solve this crisis we can develop a shared sense of moral purpose.” (June 21, 2006, London, England)
Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice.
“It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong.” (July 1, 2007, New York Times op-ed)
Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale:
Live Earth concerts organized worldwide in 2007 by Al Gore.
Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization. Pseudo-sciences are often used to falsify information.
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” (May 9, 2006 Grist interview)
Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. Also, Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience
“There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.” (January 15, 2004, New York City)
Source
Peter
Al Gore’s Propaganda
Written by Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Not a GW believer? How unpatriotic!
The methods used by global warming alarmists to convince you that more carbon dioxide is going to ruin the Earth are increasingly laced with insults and attacks directed toward anyone who might disagree with them. For instance, one of the many intellectually lazy (& false) claims is that I am paid by Big Oil.
Mr. Gore’s tactics have been a little more subtle, and reminiscent of propaganda methods which have proved to be effective throughout history at influencing public opinion. One should keep in mind that his main scientific adviser, NASA’s James Hansen, has the most extreme views of any climate researcher when it comes to predicting a global warming induced Armageddon.
Listed below are ten propaganda techniques I have excerpted from Wikipedia. Beneath each are one or more examples of Mr. Gore’s rhetoric as he has attempted to goad the rest of us into reducing our CO2 emissions. Except where indicated, most quotes are from his testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, March 21, 2007. (Mr. Gore is scheduled to testify again tomorrow, January 28, 2009, before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee…if the cold and snowy weather doesn’t cause them to reschedule.)
Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.
“I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”
Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. Also, Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited.
“Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is unequivocal. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause.”
“The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.” (from An Inconvenient Truth)
Bandwagon: Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking”. Also, Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.
“Today, I am here to deliver more than a half million messages to Congressasking for real action on global warming. More than 420 Mayors have nowadopted Kyoto-style commitments in their cities and have urged strong federal action. The evangelical and faith communities have begun to take the lead, calling for measures to protect God’s creation. The State of California, under a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature, passed strong, economy wide legislation mandating cuts in carbon dioxide. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have passed renewable energy standards for the electricity sector.”
Flag-waving: An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. Also, Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
“After all, we have taken on problems of this scope before. When England and then America and our allies rose to meet the threat of global Fascism, together we won two wars simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific.”
Ad Hominem attacks: A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. Also Demonizing the “enemy”: Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman.
“You know, 15 percent of people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the Earth is flat. They get together on Saturday night and party with the global-warming deniers.” (October 24, 2006, Seattle University)
Appeal to Prejudice: Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
“And to solve this crisis we can develop a shared sense of moral purpose.” (June 21, 2006, London, England)
Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice.
“It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong.” (July 1, 2007, New York Times op-ed)
Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale:
Live Earth concerts organized worldwide in 2007 by Al Gore.
Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization. Pseudo-sciences are often used to falsify information.
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” (May 9, 2006 Grist interview)
Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. Also, Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience
“There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.” (January 15, 2004, New York City)
Source
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Yet Another Prominent Scientist Challenges The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming
This time it is prominent Princeton University Physics Professor William Happer. Pay close attention to what he says. He has far, far more education and experience than most global warming alarmists.
There is little question we need a major national and international debate on the subject of global warming and whether man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing some kind of harmful climate change. This is not merely an academic question, but one that carries with it profound economic, social, and political consequences. We need to figure this out and get it right. The debate can not be over. This is no time to act rashly and irresponsibly.
Peter
Professor denies global warming theory
Written by Raymond Brusca, Daily Princetonian
Monday, 12 January 2009 (source)
Physics professor William Happer [pictured] GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming.
Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”
Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.
“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.
Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.
In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.
In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”
Geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, the lead author of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — whose members, along with Gore, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — said in an interview that Happer’s claims are “simply not true.”
Oppenheimer, director of the Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, noting that he advises Happer to read the IPCC’s report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings.
The University is home to a number of renowned climate change scientists. Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Stephen Pacala and mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow, who are co-chairs of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) and the Princeton Environmental Institute, developed a set of 15 “stabilization wedges.” These are existing technologies that would, by the year 2054, each prevent 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. They argue that the implementation of seven of these wedges would be needed to reach a target level of carbon in the atmosphere.
Neither Pacala nor Socolow could be reached for comment.
Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.
“Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don’t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,” Happer noted. “I’m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.”
The CMI has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 — by five years.
The Marshall Institute, however, has received at least $715,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation and Corporate Giving division from 1998 to 2006, according to the company’s public reports. Though Exxon has challenged the scientific models for proving the human link to climate change in the past, its spokesmen have said that the company’s stance has been misunderstood. Others say the company has changed its stance.
Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”
The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.
“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist” claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.
“There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,” Happer explained. “They can’t even do that.”
Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.
“[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn’t change at all,” he explained. “So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand.”
The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.
“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”
Source
There is little question we need a major national and international debate on the subject of global warming and whether man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing some kind of harmful climate change. This is not merely an academic question, but one that carries with it profound economic, social, and political consequences. We need to figure this out and get it right. The debate can not be over. This is no time to act rashly and irresponsibly.
Peter
Professor denies global warming theory
Written by Raymond Brusca, Daily Princetonian
Monday, 12 January 2009 (source)
Physics professor William Happer [pictured] GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming.
Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”
Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.
“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.
Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.
In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.
In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”
Geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, the lead author of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — whose members, along with Gore, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — said in an interview that Happer’s claims are “simply not true.”
Oppenheimer, director of the Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, stressed that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures, noting that he advises Happer to read the IPCC’s report and publish a scientific report detailing his objections to its findings.
The University is home to a number of renowned climate change scientists. Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Stephen Pacala and mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Robert Socolow, who are co-chairs of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) and the Princeton Environmental Institute, developed a set of 15 “stabilization wedges.” These are existing technologies that would, by the year 2054, each prevent 1 billion tons of carbon emissions. They argue that the implementation of seven of these wedges would be needed to reach a target level of carbon in the atmosphere.
Neither Pacala nor Socolow could be reached for comment.
Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.
“Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don’t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,” Happer noted. “I’m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.”
The CMI has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 — by five years.
The Marshall Institute, however, has received at least $715,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation and Corporate Giving division from 1998 to 2006, according to the company’s public reports. Though Exxon has challenged the scientific models for proving the human link to climate change in the past, its spokesmen have said that the company’s stance has been misunderstood. Others say the company has changed its stance.
Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”
The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.
“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist” claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.
“There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,” Happer explained. “They can’t even do that.”
Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.
“[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn’t change at all,” he explained. “So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand.”
The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.
“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”
Source
USGS Website On Glaciers And Climate Change
Here is an excellent website created by the USGS (United States Geological Survey). It illustrates and explains the basics about glaciers, their history, and how they respond and relate to the Earth's changes in climate. In trying to understand all of the concern over global warming, this website is a good place to learn what we do know about glaciers and climate change from past history. This way we can put current events in perspective and hopefully be better able to separate fact from fiction, or reality from global warming alarmist hype.
Peter
Glaciers and Climate Change
January 13, 2009 USGS (source)
The USGS has a website that illustrates how Earth’s glaciers and landscapes are responding to climate change. The site focuses on the glaciers of Alaska.
For example, some interesting facts about glaciers and sea level:
Glaciers and Sea Level
Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly since the early 1900's. The arrows point to the former extent of the glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the 19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
Worldwide, most mountain glaciers have been retreating since the end of the "Little Ice Age". Although this date varies from region to region, in most locations, retreat was underway by the late 1800s. As a consequence of glacier meltwater entering the global ocean, global sea level has risen about 30 centimeters (about one foot). Glaciers vary in size in response to changes in global and regional climate.
Sea-level changes, especially in densely populated, low-lying coastal areas and on islands, have significant effects on human activities and facilities. The present volume of the Earth’s glacier ice, if totally melted, represents about 80 meters in potential sea-level rise.
If all of Alaska's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.05 meters (about 0.16 feet).
If all of Earth's temperate glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.3 meters (about one foot).
If all of Greenland's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 6 meters (about 19.7 feet).
If all of Antarctica's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 73 meters (about 240 feet).
The geologic record documents that glaciers have existed on Earth for billions of years. During that time, glaciers have repeatedly expanded and shrunk in response to changes in global and regional climate. During glacial stages (ice ages), periods of time dominated by colder climate, global sea level was lowered by as much as 200 meters. This is the result of water evaporating from the oceans being precipitated as snow and frozen into continental scale glaciers.
About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.
About 125,000 years ago, during a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial stage, sea level was about 6 meters (about 19.7 feet) higher than it is today.
About 2.2 million years ago, during an even warmer interval, sea level is estimated to have been 25 to 50 meters (about 82 to 164 feet) higher.
Less than 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), glaciers covered: ~ 8 % of Earth's surface ~ 25 % of Earth's land area ~ 30% of Alaska.
Following the LGM (beginning ~ 15,000 yr B.P.), continental glaciers retreated and sea level began to rise. By ~ 6,000 yr B.P. sea level reached its current height. It has fluctuated ever since.
Today, glaciers cover: ~ 3.1 % of Earth's surface, ~ 10.7 % of Earth's land area ~ 5 % of Alaska.
For more information visit the USGS Web site Sea Level and Climate.
Peter
Glaciers and Climate Change
January 13, 2009 USGS (source)
The USGS has a website that illustrates how Earth’s glaciers and landscapes are responding to climate change. The site focuses on the glaciers of Alaska.
For example, some interesting facts about glaciers and sea level:
Glaciers and Sea Level
Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly since the early 1900's. The arrows point to the former extent of the glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the 19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
Worldwide, most mountain glaciers have been retreating since the end of the "Little Ice Age". Although this date varies from region to region, in most locations, retreat was underway by the late 1800s. As a consequence of glacier meltwater entering the global ocean, global sea level has risen about 30 centimeters (about one foot). Glaciers vary in size in response to changes in global and regional climate.
Sea-level changes, especially in densely populated, low-lying coastal areas and on islands, have significant effects on human activities and facilities. The present volume of the Earth’s glacier ice, if totally melted, represents about 80 meters in potential sea-level rise.
If all of Alaska's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.05 meters (about 0.16 feet).
If all of Earth's temperate glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 0.3 meters (about one foot).
If all of Greenland's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 6 meters (about 19.7 feet).
If all of Antarctica's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 73 meters (about 240 feet).
The geologic record documents that glaciers have existed on Earth for billions of years. During that time, glaciers have repeatedly expanded and shrunk in response to changes in global and regional climate. During glacial stages (ice ages), periods of time dominated by colder climate, global sea level was lowered by as much as 200 meters. This is the result of water evaporating from the oceans being precipitated as snow and frozen into continental scale glaciers.
About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today.
About 125,000 years ago, during a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial stage, sea level was about 6 meters (about 19.7 feet) higher than it is today.
About 2.2 million years ago, during an even warmer interval, sea level is estimated to have been 25 to 50 meters (about 82 to 164 feet) higher.
Less than 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), glaciers covered: ~ 8 % of Earth's surface ~ 25 % of Earth's land area ~ 30% of Alaska.
Following the LGM (beginning ~ 15,000 yr B.P.), continental glaciers retreated and sea level began to rise. By ~ 6,000 yr B.P. sea level reached its current height. It has fluctuated ever since.
Today, glaciers cover: ~ 3.1 % of Earth's surface, ~ 10.7 % of Earth's land area ~ 5 % of Alaska.
For more information visit the USGS Web site Sea Level and Climate.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama And His Advisors Are Told Global Warming Is Over
Is this Mr. John Casey of the "Space and Science Research Center" legitimate or is he simply another "scam" artist? There are differing opinions on the subject. See here for example.
What do you think?
Peter
Obama Climate Change Advisers Holgren and Lubchenco Are Told Global Warming Is Over
Written by Space and Science Research Center
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Dr. John Holgren
Time to Prepare the US for the New Cold Era
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today releases a letter mailed on January 1, 2009 to President-elect Barrack Obama’s nominated science adviser Dr. John Holgren and nominated NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco clearly stating that “…global warming is over; a new cold climate has arrived.”
In this letter, SSRC Director John Casey calls on Dr. Holgren to immediately reverse course on global warming programs and start preparing the country for the next climate change. Since the early 2007 discovery of the solar cycles that according to Casey drive our climate over a period of about 200 years, he and later the SSRC have been on a mission to get the word out to government leaders and media representatives in order to prepare the US for the coming bitter cold era.
In explaining the reason for this first press release of 2009, Mr. Casey says,” There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather. This was predicted by me and a few other scientists around the globe but of course we were not taken seriously because of the politics of global warming and the refusal of many media outlets to print or telecast alternatives to the now discredited man made global warming concept. According to national and international sources that monitor the Sun, what is happening on and in the Sun is nothing short of record setting, astounding, and at the same time worrisome. The solar wind is at its lowest level in fifty years. The surface movement on the Sun has slowed to record rates and according to NASA’s previous announcements is ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ Most telling is the current prolonged lack of sunspots between the normal 11 year solar cycles 23 and 24 which is about to set a one hundred year record for time without sunspots. NASA also has long since forecast that cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.” All of these events in combination leave little doubt that a ‘solar hibernation’ lasting several decades delivering the coldest weather in over two centuries has in fact arrived.”
In its last press release of 2008, the SSRC had warned President-elect Obama in its sternest language to date, of the coming cold and genuine apprehension about climate change campaign promises and recent appointments. The release expressed that such actions in support of anthropogenic global warming would create a punitive and restrictive atmosphere for scientists who oppose the belief that greenhouse gas emissions were the primary agents of climate change and that the ill-effects of the new cold weather without government assistance and preparation, would lead to a ‘worst case scenario’ for the American people.
Director Casey repeated his long standing position on the next climate change with the comment, “The longer we delay the necessary nation-wide preparations for the coming cold era the more difficult it will be. If the extremist rhetoric of man made climate change advocacy takes hold in the Obama administration which at this point is at fever pitch, then the stage will be set for the new cold climate to catch us completely off guard and unprepared. This will cause many Americans to suffer needlessly.”
He added further, “The Earth has been in a long term cooling trend technically for eleven years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people. Also and unfortunately, the Presidential campaign where both major parties continued to beat the drum of global warming and man made climate change only helped to cement in the flawed concept that mankind was more powerful and had more influence on the Earth’s climate than the Sun itself. This unbelievable idea has been pushed heavily by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and the previous press release are intended to be no nonsense, to the point pleadings for some sanity in our government and the main stream media that have failed to accept the new climate reality.
Specifically, it was the Sun and not man that caused the past twenty years of peak heating and it is the same Sun that through a dramatic decline in its activity will now bring us decades of extreme cold climate.”
In a closing statement Casey reiterated, “The global warming of the past decades was caused by the Sun. It is now over. It will not return based upon the SSRC’s research, for at least thirty years. It will then return only because the Sun’s repeating cycles of activity are scheduled to pick up again at that time. We should not waste another minute, another penny in controlling something that simply does not exist, namely man made climate change and global warming. It is essential for the welfare of all Americans if not the world, that in light of these new and startling changes in the Earth’s temperature and the profound changes in the Sun, that the next administration initiate a top-down review and redirection of climate change policy as soon as President Obama takes office.”
Letter to Dr. John Holgren
Press Release SSRC 1-2008
Press Release SSRC 2-2008
Press Release SSRC 3-2008
Press Release SSRC 4-2008
Press Release SSRC 5-2008
Source
What do you think?
Peter
Obama Climate Change Advisers Holgren and Lubchenco Are Told Global Warming Is Over
Written by Space and Science Research Center
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Dr. John Holgren
Time to Prepare the US for the New Cold Era
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today releases a letter mailed on January 1, 2009 to President-elect Barrack Obama’s nominated science adviser Dr. John Holgren and nominated NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco clearly stating that “…global warming is over; a new cold climate has arrived.”
In this letter, SSRC Director John Casey calls on Dr. Holgren to immediately reverse course on global warming programs and start preparing the country for the next climate change. Since the early 2007 discovery of the solar cycles that according to Casey drive our climate over a period of about 200 years, he and later the SSRC have been on a mission to get the word out to government leaders and media representatives in order to prepare the US for the coming bitter cold era.
In explaining the reason for this first press release of 2009, Mr. Casey says,” There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather. This was predicted by me and a few other scientists around the globe but of course we were not taken seriously because of the politics of global warming and the refusal of many media outlets to print or telecast alternatives to the now discredited man made global warming concept. According to national and international sources that monitor the Sun, what is happening on and in the Sun is nothing short of record setting, astounding, and at the same time worrisome. The solar wind is at its lowest level in fifty years. The surface movement on the Sun has slowed to record rates and according to NASA’s previous announcements is ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ Most telling is the current prolonged lack of sunspots between the normal 11 year solar cycles 23 and 24 which is about to set a one hundred year record for time without sunspots. NASA also has long since forecast that cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.” All of these events in combination leave little doubt that a ‘solar hibernation’ lasting several decades delivering the coldest weather in over two centuries has in fact arrived.”
In its last press release of 2008, the SSRC had warned President-elect Obama in its sternest language to date, of the coming cold and genuine apprehension about climate change campaign promises and recent appointments. The release expressed that such actions in support of anthropogenic global warming would create a punitive and restrictive atmosphere for scientists who oppose the belief that greenhouse gas emissions were the primary agents of climate change and that the ill-effects of the new cold weather without government assistance and preparation, would lead to a ‘worst case scenario’ for the American people.
Director Casey repeated his long standing position on the next climate change with the comment, “The longer we delay the necessary nation-wide preparations for the coming cold era the more difficult it will be. If the extremist rhetoric of man made climate change advocacy takes hold in the Obama administration which at this point is at fever pitch, then the stage will be set for the new cold climate to catch us completely off guard and unprepared. This will cause many Americans to suffer needlessly.”
He added further, “The Earth has been in a long term cooling trend technically for eleven years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people. Also and unfortunately, the Presidential campaign where both major parties continued to beat the drum of global warming and man made climate change only helped to cement in the flawed concept that mankind was more powerful and had more influence on the Earth’s climate than the Sun itself. This unbelievable idea has been pushed heavily by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and the previous press release are intended to be no nonsense, to the point pleadings for some sanity in our government and the main stream media that have failed to accept the new climate reality.
Specifically, it was the Sun and not man that caused the past twenty years of peak heating and it is the same Sun that through a dramatic decline in its activity will now bring us decades of extreme cold climate.”
In a closing statement Casey reiterated, “The global warming of the past decades was caused by the Sun. It is now over. It will not return based upon the SSRC’s research, for at least thirty years. It will then return only because the Sun’s repeating cycles of activity are scheduled to pick up again at that time. We should not waste another minute, another penny in controlling something that simply does not exist, namely man made climate change and global warming. It is essential for the welfare of all Americans if not the world, that in light of these new and startling changes in the Earth’s temperature and the profound changes in the Sun, that the next administration initiate a top-down review and redirection of climate change policy as soon as President Obama takes office.”
Letter to Dr. John Holgren
Press Release SSRC 1-2008
Press Release SSRC 2-2008
Press Release SSRC 3-2008
Press Release SSRC 4-2008
Press Release SSRC 5-2008
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)