We Must Finally Get Past The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

In my opinion the scientific debate about whether mankind's activities play a significant role in global climate change is long over, as summarized in the commentary below. What remains is a battle to regain political and economic sanity. Whenever anyone claims we must produce electric cars, or "downsize", or "reduce our carbon footprint", or subsidize the building of "wind farms", "solar farms" and uneconomic geothermal energy, remind them that the rationale behind all of this activity is based on a fundamental lie.

As I have been saying and trying to show on this blog since day one, the idea that man-caused global warming, or climate change, or "climate disruption" is and has been an enormous LIE, a terrible, costly, and cruel hoax. We need to continue fighting to convince the dwindling number of people who still believe in the myth of man-caused global warming that they are flat-out wrong. It is past time to put an end to the hoax. Others can do the finger-pointing and play the blame-game. It is just time to put an end to the nonsense. America and our economic survival depends on it.
Peter

Climate Alarmism at the New York Times

Written by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker 07 November 2010 (source)

The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.

There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.

Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW. The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.

Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival, all of these require huge subsidies. which are paid for by citizens twice over: first as taxpayers, then as energy users.

The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere. California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster.

As reported by Cooler Heads Digest: "... the new Republican majority in the House is largely skeptical of the claim that global warming is a potential crisis and is close to unanimously opposed to cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing measures. Not only is cap-and-trade dead, but there is a good chance that the House next year will move legislation to block or delay the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes. As EPA regulations start to bite next year, Senators will start to hear complaints from their constituents. And a large number of Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 and will want to avoid the fate of so many of their colleagues this year.

The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:

**77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes
**68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it
**90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums
**83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.

The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science.

Source

The Earth Is Doing Just Fine

The following article explains what geologists have known for decades. The visible, measurable, and documented history of the Earth shows that climate change is and always has been occurring since the dawn of time. The changes are far beyond any global effect mankind has on the planet. Most notably, the input of the harmless gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can not possibly have a significant negative effect on the global climate. Those who have been preaching and promoting this idea are clearly wrong.

I suspect most of these global warming alarmists, including President Obama's science advisers, know they are wrong but continue the myth of man-caused global warming for reasons other than the "health of Mother Earth". Oh, and now they want to change the terminology from "global warming" or "climate change" to "climate disruption". Isn't that clever? The only problem is I think people are tired of being fooled, manipulated, and lied to. I'm very happy to see an article like that which follows, published in that icon of the mainstream media, "Newsweek Magazine". As I have been saying on this blog since the beginning, the myth of man-caused global warming will be destroyed. The truth will prevail.

I propose our teachers teach real Earth History as a contrast to Al Gore's fatalistic fantasies.

Peter

The Earth Doesn’t Care

About what is done to or for it.

by George F. Will September 12, 2010

Source

The cover of The American Scholar quarterly carries an impertinent assertion: “The Earth Doesn’t Care if You Drive a Hybrid.” The essay inside is titled “What the Earth Knows.” What it knows, according to Robert B. Laughlin, co-winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics, is this: What humans do to, and ostensibly for, the earth does not matter in the long run, and the long run is what matters to the earth. We must, Laughlin says, think about the earth’s past in terms of geologic time.

For example: The world’s total precipitation in a year is about one meter—“the height of a golden retriever.” About 200 meters—the height of the Hoover Dam—have fallen on earth since the Industrial Revolution. Since the Ice Age ended, enough rain has fallen to fill all the oceans four times; since the dinosaurs died, rainfall has been sufficient to fill the oceans 20,000 times. Yet the amount of water on earth probably hasn’t changed significantly over geologic time.

Damaging this old earth is, Laughlin says, “easier to imagine than it is to accomplish.” There have been mass volcanic explosions, meteor impacts, “and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor.”

Laughlin acknowledges that “a lot of responsible people” are worried about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This has, he says, “the potential” to modify the weather by raising average temperatures several degrees centigrade and that governments have taken “significant, although ineffective,” steps to slow the warming. “On the scales of time relevant to itself, the earth doesn’t care about any of these governments or their legislation.”

Buy a hybrid, turn off your air conditioner, unplug your refrigerator, yank your phone charger from the wall socket—such actions will “leave the end result exactly the same.” Someday, all the fossil fuels that used to be in the ground will be burned. After that, in about a millennium, the earth will dissolve most of the resulting carbon dioxide into the oceans. (The oceans have dissolved in them “40 times more carbon than the atmosphere contains, a total of 30 trillion tons, or 30 times the world’s coal reserves.”) The dissolving will leave the concentration in the atmosphere only slightly higher than today’s. Then “over tens of millennia, or perhaps hundreds” the earth will transfer the excess carbon dioxide into its rocks, “eventually returning levels in the sea and air to what they were before humans arrived on the scene.” This will take an eternity as humans reckon, but a blink in geologic time.

It seems, Laughlin says, that “something, presumably a geologic regulatory process, fixed the world’s carbon dioxide levels before humans arrived” with their SUVs and computers. Some scientists argue that “the photosynthetic machinery of plants seems optimized” to certain carbon dioxide levels. But “most models, even pessimistic ones,” envision “a thousand-year carbon dioxide pulse followed by glacially slow decay back to the pre-civilization situation.”

Laughlin believes that humans can “do damage persisting for geologic time” by “biodiversity loss”—extinctions that are, unlike carbon dioxide excesses, permanent. The earth did not reverse the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today extinctions result mostly from human population pressures—habitat destruction, pesticides, etc.—but “slowing man-made extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world’s human population.” Which will not happen.

There is something like a pathology of climatology. To avoid mixing fact and speculation, earth scientists are, Laughlin says, “ultraconservative,” meaning they focus on the present and the immediate future: “[They] go to extraordinary lengths to prove by means of measurement that the globe is warming now, the ocean is acidifying now, fossil fuel is being exhausted now, and so forth, even though these things are self-evident in geologic time.”

Climate change over geologic time is, Laughlin says, something the earth has done “on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” People can cause climate change, but major glacial episodes have occurred “at regular intervals of 100,000 years,” always “a slow, steady cooling followed by abrupt warming back to conditions similar to today’s.”

Six million years ago the Mediterranean dried up. Ninety million years ago there were alligators in the Arctic. Three hundred million years ago Northern Europe was a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. “One thing we know for sure,” Laughlin says about these convulsions, “is that people weren’t involved.”

The Un-Making Of Al Gore And His Global Warming Alarmists

Not only has Tipper Gore seen the light and wants to distance herself from Al Gore (and his fraudulent activities), but the public seems to finally be catching on to what an enormous hoax the entire myth of man-caused global warming is and has been.

Wouldn't we all love to have those Billions of dollars spent on this "wild goose chase" returned to the government coffers and use that money for something based on sound, honest science instead of a socialist, leftist agenda? Maybe the tide is turning. Maybe the global economic and financial crises are causing people to take a second look at how taxpayers money is being spent. Maybe simple common sense will prevail after all.
Peter

Climate alarmists on the run (source)

FROM-The Washington Times

Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes.

How the tables have turned in a short time. On May 20, Oxford Union, the prestigious 187-year-old English debating society, formally considered the question of whether it was more important to focus on growing the economy or solving global warming. Climate realism won the day, 135 to 110. It's no wonder, considering how the purportedly scientific arguments advanced in support of the scaremongering conclusions have fallen apart since the Climategate scandal invited verification of the left's previously unexamined claims.

During the debate, Lord Whitty, former environment minister under the Labor government, claimed 95 percent of scientists were in agreement that man was responsible for a coming climatic cataclysm. Lord Monckton, representing climate realists, asked him to provide a reference backing up the claim. The audience jeered Lord Whitty for having none beyond, "Everyone knows it's true."

When the best the warmists can come up with is an appeal to authority, their case is lost for good. That's why, just a few days earlier, climate realists gathered in triumph on this side of the pondat a Heartland Institute climate-change conference in Chicago. Eminent scientists presented a wealth of evidence suggesting nature is, in fact, a much more powerful factor affecting the climate than man. That realism suggests the need for moderation when it comes to political action based on climate data.

"We think we need public policy that's based in facts, rather than facts that are based on a public agenda," Colorado State University professor Scott Denning said.

Once outcasts on the fringe of the scientific community, these individuals braved the ridicule of the self-appointed "enlightened" members of society to dismantle systematically the hockey sticks and other frauds crafted by leftists over the years.

In 1895, the New York Times suggested the Earth was headed toward a "second glacial period" in which "countries now basking in the fostering warmth of the tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions." By 1923, the Gray Lady had decided, "The Arctic seems to be warming up" as "so little ice has never before been noted." By the 1970s, schoolchildren were indoctrinated by textbooks blaming a new ice age on man's Earth abuse.

All this begs the question of how long it will take the warmist crew to readjust their scare story to win back the public. The majority firmly rejects their socialist prescription to solve an imaginary problem.


More...

Brits Losing Faith In Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Even the infamously biased NY Times is recognizing that people the world over are rapidly losing faith in the myth of man-caused global warming. Buy your seaside mansions quick Al Gore; diversify, hide your assets, your reign of deception is coming to an end.
Peter

May 24, 2010 (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html?th&emc=th )

Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.

“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”

Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions.

And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.

Politicians and activists say such attitudes will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”

The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.

Here in Britain, the change has been driven by the news media’s intensive coverage of a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November. These include the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from prominent British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that skeptics cited as evidence that researchers were overstating the evidence for global warming and the discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.

Two independent reviews later found no evidence that the East Anglia researchers had actively distorted climate data, but heavy press coverage had already left an impression that the scientists had schemed to repress data. Then there was the unusually cold winter in Northern Europe and the United States, which may have reinforced a perception that the Earth was not warming. (Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a United States agency, show that globally, this winter was the fifth warmest in history.)

Asked about his views on global warming on a recent evening, Brian George, a 30-year-old builder from southeast London, mused, “It was extremely cold in January, wasn’t it?”

In a telephone interview, Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.

“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.” Indeed, once Mr. Cameron became prime minister, he vowed to run “the greenest government in our history” and proposed projects like a more efficient national electricity grid.

Scientists have meanwhile awakened to the public’s misgivings and are increasingly fighting back. An editorial in the prestigious journal Nature said climate deniers were using “every means at their disposal to undermine science and scientists” and urged scientists to counterattack. Scientists in France, the Netherlands and the United States have signed open letters affirming their trust in climate change evidence, including one published on May 7 in the journal Science.

In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.

“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.

It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.

In January, for example, The Times chastised the United Nations climate panel for an errant and unsupported projection that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The United Nations ultimately apologized for including the estimate, which was mentioned in passing within a 3,000-page report in 2007.

Then came articles contending that the 2007 report was inaccurate on a host of other issues, including African drought, the portion of the Netherlands below sea level, and the economic impact of severe storms. Officials from the climate panel said the articles’ claims either were false or reflected minor errors like faulty citations that in no way diluted the evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, successfully demanded in February that some German newspapers remove misleading articles from their Web sites. But such reports have become so common that he “wouldn’t bother” to pursue most cases now, he added.

The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain Of Climate Change Deception And Lies

Call it the perfect storm. The sick economy has people alert and sensitive to government skulduggery and along comes ClimateGate. It is time to knock down the house of cards that is the myth of man-caused global warming. It has stood for far, far too long.
Peter

Green Movement Hits Yellow Light on Climate

Written by Dan Gainor, Business & Media Institute 12 May 2010

Bad data, bad public relations, new investigation bedevil quest for cap-and-tax bill.

If a climate scientist falls in the forest, does anybody hear?

Not if the old media have anything to do with it. Thankfully, in 2010, their hold on the news has started to weaken.

But it’s not like they didn’t try. For more than five months, from Nov. 20, 2009, to April 1, 2010, the broadcast networks did all they could to hide a crisis in the climate alarmist movement.

That first event, now called Climate Gate, has grown into a series of global warming scandals that have shaken faith in both the science we are fed on a regular basis and the scientists who do the feeding.

This week in Chicago, the Heartland Institute is bringing together the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, a meeting of hundreds of scientists and policy experts who dare to challenge so-called conventional wisdom on global warming.

Instead of having a meeting, they should be having a celebration.

Not that they’ve won. They haven’t. But for the first time in many years, there is a public understanding that our daily diet of climate propaganda might be somewhat or even entirely bogus. That’s due in a large part to the embarrassments that came out of the initial Climate Gate report where e-mails from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were leaked to the world.

Those e-mails, and a separate document showing the shoddy data gathering done by those involved, included thousands of messages showing the potential manipulation of temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles.

The most famous of the e-mails included this line for CRU Director Phil Jones to Penn State scientist Michael Mann. Climate geeks know Mann for his hockey stick graph of global warming, which has been key to climate alarmists and even cropped up in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.”

Jones wrote Mann, saying: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

An e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of three IPCC climate change reports, said this memorable comment: “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.” Oops.

While Jones had to temporarily step down, the left continues to try and white wash the whole episode.

But skeptics and critics aren’t about to let that happen.

A group called Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW) created a hilarious parody video mocking Mann called “Hide the Decline.” The video was based on the Tommy James and the Shondells song “Draggin the Line.” Mann screamed bloody murder about the parody and his lawyers claimed it “irreparably harms Dr. Mann’s personal and professional reputation.” The sequel appears on the group’s Web site along with an appeal for donations to a legal defense fund to fend off Mann’s legal attacks.

Mann and other global warming alarmists aren’t just facing video mockery on YouTube. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is “seeking documents related to the work of a former University of Virginia climate scientist, even as the university says it is preparing to comply with Cuccinelli's request,” according to The Washington Post. The former U.Va. climate scientist is, of course, Mann.

Lefty academics think it unfair that, after decades of suppressing climate skepticism, their own work can be held to some legal standard. Physics Today called the Cuccinelli move “blatantly political.” Science magazine published the complaints of 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences in a letter called “for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association.” According to the May 8 Virginia Pilot, the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia have “asked U.Va. to fight Cuccinelli's demand.”

The left doesn’t get it. After decades of propaganda, we just don’t trust them anymore. Conservatives aren’t anti-science. They doubt the work of specific scientists who have destroyed data, manipulated their research, bullied those with an opposing view and included outright propaganda in UN reports on the issue.

Despite all this, Al Gore, the patron saint of green wrote on April 27 in the HuffingtonPost.com that “Global warming denialists have been re-discredited.” And that lunacy has taken form in Congress. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., are unleashing their climate bill – the huge new tax of a “cap-and-trade” proposal.

Just as it was with Climate Gate, you can count on the media not telling us everything about this 1,000-page growth-of-government bill. No matter what they report, remember it’s a big green bill. And if it passes, every one of us will be sending big green to Washington.

Source

Congress Finally Hearing Truth About Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

It is nice to see some historical scientifically verifiable facts laid out for all to see which clearly destroy the myth of man-caused global warming. There is an abundance of this kind geologic information that has been ignored by the global warming alarmists and so called "climate scientists". Al Gore? As always, he is a hypocrite, fraud and a buffoon.....albeit a wealthy one.
Peter

Testimony of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Before Congress, 6 May 2010

The Select Committee, in its letter inviting testimony for the present hearing, cites

various scientific bodies as having concluded that –

1. The global climate has warmed;

2. Human activities account for most of the warming since the mid-20

th

century;

3. Climate change is already causing a broad range of impacts in the United States;

4. The impacts of climate change are expected to grow in the coming decades.

The first statement requires heavy qualification and, since the second is wrong, the third

and fourth are without foundation and must fall.

The Select Committee has requested answers to the following questions:

1. What are the observed changes to the climate system?

Carbon dioxide concentration:

In the Neoproterozoic Era, ~750 million years ago,

dolomitic rocks, containing ~40% CO2 bonded not only with calcium ions but also with

magnesium, were precipitated from the oceans worldwide by a reaction that could not

have occurred unless the atmospheric concentration of CO2 had been ~300,000 parts

per million by volume. Yet in that era equatorial glaciers came and went twice at sea

level.

Today, the concentration is ~773 times less, at ~388 ppmv: yet there are no equatorial

glaciers at sea level. If the warming effect of CO2 were anything like as great as the

vested-interest groups now seek to maintain, then, even after allowing for greater

surface albedo and 5% less solar radiation, those glaciers could not possibly have existed

(personal communication from Professor Ian Plimer, confirmed by on-site inspection of

dolomitic and tillite deposits at Arkaroola Northern Flinders Ranges, South Australia).

In the Cambrian Era, ~550 million years ago, limestones, containing some 44% CO2

bonded with calcium ions, were precipitated from the oceans. At that time, atmospheric

CO2 concentration was ~7000 ppmv, or ~18 times today’s (IPCC, 2001): yet it was at

that time that the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. In the Jurassic era, ~175

million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~6000 ppmv, or ~15 times

today’s (IPCC, 2001): yet it was then that the delicate aragonite corals came into being.

Therefore, today’s CO2 concentration, though perhaps the highest in 20 million years, is

by no means exceptional or damaging. Indeed, it has been argued that trees and plants

have been part-starved of CO2 throughout that period (Senate testimony of Professor

Will Happer, Princeton University, 2009). It is also known that a doubling of today’s

CO2 concentration, projected to occur later this century (IPCC, 2007), would increase

the yield of some staple crops by up to 40% (lecture by Dr. Leighton Steward,

Parliament Chamber, Copenhagen, December 2009).

Global mean surface temperature:

Throughout most of the past 550 million years,

global temperatures were ~7 K (13 F°) warmer than the present. In each of the past four

interglacial warm periods over the past 650,000 years, temperatures were warmer than

the present by several degrees (A.A. Gore,

An Inconvenient Truth

, 2006).

In the current or Holocene warm period, which began 11,400 years ago at the abrupt

termination of the Younger Dryas cooling event, some 7500 years were warmer than the

present (Cuffey & Clow, 1997), and, in particular, the medieval, Roman, Minoan, and

Holocene Climate Optima were warmer than the present (Cuffey & Clow, 1997).

The “global warming” that ceased late in 2001 (since when there has been a global

cooling trend for eight full years) had begun in 1695, towards the end of the Maunder

Minimum, a period of 70 years from 1645-1715 when the Sun was less active than at any

time in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004). Solar activity increased with a rapidity

unprecedented in the Holocene, reaching a Grand Solar Maximum during a period of 70

years from 1925-1995 when the Sun was very nearly as active as it had been at any time

in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Usoskin, 2003; Solanki, 2005).

The first instrumental record of global temperatures was kept in Central England from

1659. From 1695-1735, a period of 40 years preceding the onset of the Industrial

Revolution in 1750, temperatures in central England, which are a respectable proxy for

global temperatures, rose by 2.2 K (4 F°). Yet global temperatures have risen by only

0.65 K (1.2 F°) since 1950, and 0.7 K (1.3 F°) in the whole of the 20

th

century.

Throughout the 21

st

century, global temperatures have followed a declining trend.

Accordingly, neither global mean surface temperature nor its rates of change in recent

decades have been exceptional, unusual, inexplicable, or unprecedented.

Ocean “acidification”:

It has been suggested that the oceans have “acidified” – or,

more correctly, become less alkaline – by 0.1 acid-base units in recent decades.

However, the fact of a movement towards neutrality in ocean chemistry, if such a

movement has occurred, tells us nothing of the cause, which cannot be attributed to

increases in CO2 concentration. There is 70 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans

as there is in the atmosphere, and some 30% of any CO2 we add to the atmosphere will

eventually dissolve into the oceans. Accordingly, a doubling of CO2 concentration,

expected later this century, would raise the oceanic partial pressure of CO2 by 30% of

one-seventieth of what is already there. And that is an increase of 0.4% at most. Even

this minuscule and chemically-irrelevant perturbation is probably overstated, since any

“global warming” that resulted from the doubling of CO2 concentration would warm the

oceans and cause them to outgas CO2, reducing the oceanic partial pressure.

Seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved

inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility

that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water (pH 7.0), even if all the

fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned. A change in pH of 0.2 units this century,

from its present 8.2 to 8.0, even if it were possible, would leave the sea containing no

more than 10% of the “acidic” positively-charged hydrogen ions that occur in pure

water. If ocean “acidification” is happening, then CO2 is not and will not be the culprit.

2. What evidence provides attribution of these changes to human

activities?

In the global instrumental record, which commenced in 1850, the three supradecadal

periods of most rapid warming were 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-2001. Warming

rates in all three periods were identical at ~0.16 K (0.3 F°) per decade.

During the first two of these three periods, observations were insufficient to establish

the causes of the warming: however, the principal cause cannot have been atmospheric

CO2 enrichment, because, on any view, mankind’s emissions of CO2 had not increased

enough to cause any measurable warming on a global scale during those short periods.

In fact, the third period of rapid global warming, 1975-2001, was the only period of

warming since 1950. From 1950-1975, and again from 2001-2010, global temperatures

fell slightly (HadCRUTv3, cited in IPCC, 2007).

What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most recent

period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites confirmed

measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and naturally-occurring,

global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker

et al.,

2005).

Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of

outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time

for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting

to 0.106 W m

–2 year–1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W m–2 year–1

found by

Dr. Pinker.

Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global

brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m

–2

over the 18-year period of study would be

expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1

K (1.8 F°). To put this naturally-occurring global brightening into perspective, the

IPCC’s estimated total of all the anthropogenic influences on climate combined in the

256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m

–2

.

Taking into account a further projected warming, using IPCC methods, of ~0.5 K (0.9

F°) from CO2 and other anthropogenic sources, projected warming of 1.5 K (2.7 F°)

should have occurred.

However, only a quarter of this projected warming was observed, suggesting the

possibility that the IPCC may have overestimated the warming effect of greenhouse

gases fourfold. This result is in line with similar result obtained by other methods: for

instance, Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2010 submitted) find that the warming rate to be

expected as a result of anthropogenic activities is one-quarter to one-fifth of the IPCC’s

central estimate.

There is no consensus on how much warming a given increase in CO2 will cause.

3. Assuming ad argumentum that the IPCC’s projections of future

warming are correct, what policy measures should be taken?

Warming at the very much reduced rate that measured (as opposed to merely modeled)

results suggest would be 0.7-0.8 K (1.3-1.4 F°) at CO2 doubling. That would be harmless

and beneficial – a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase yields of some staple

crops by 40%. Therefore, one need not anticipate any significant adverse impact from

CO2-induced “global warming”. “Global warming” is a non-problem, and the correct

policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

However,

ad argumentum,

let us assume that the IPCC is correct in finding that a

warming of 3.26 ± 0.69 K (5.9 ± 1.2 F°: IPCC, 2007, ch.10, box 10.2) might occur at CO2

doubling. We generalize this central prediction, deriving a simple equation to tell us how

much warming the IPCC would predict for any given change in CO2 concentration –

ΔTS

≈ (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/C

o) F°

Thus, the change in surface temperature in Fahrenheit degrees, as predicted by the

IPCC, would be 6.7 to 10.3 (with a central estimate of 8.5) times the logarithm of the

proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. We check the equation by using it to work

out the warming the IPCC would predict at CO2 doubling: 8.5 ln 2

≈

5.9 F°.

Using this equation, we can determine just how much “global warming” would be

forestalled if the entire world were to shut down its economies and emit no carbon

dioxide at all for an entire year. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 388 parts per

million by volume. Our emissions of 30 bn tons of CO2 a year are causing this

concentration to rise at 2 ppmv/year, and this ratio of 15 bn tons of emissions to each

additional ppmv of CO2 concentration has remained constant for 30 years.

Then the “global warming” that we might forestall if we shut down the entire global

carbon economy for a full year would be 8.5 ln[(388+2)/388] = 0.044 F°. At that rate,

almost a quarter of a century of global zero-carbon activity would be needed in order to

forestall just one Fahrenheit degree of “global warming”.

Two conclusions ineluctably follow. First, it would be orders of magnitude more costeffective

to adapt to any “global warming” that might occur than to try to prevent it from

occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.

Secondly, there is no hurry. Even after 23 years doing nothing to address the imagined

problem, and even if the IPCC has not exaggerated CO2’s warming effect fourfold, the

world will be just 1 F° warmer than it is today. If the IPCC has exaggerated fourfold, the

world can do nothing for almost a century before global temperature rises by 1 F°.

There are many urgent priorities that need the attention of Congress, and it is not for me

as an invited guest in your country to say what they are. Yet I can say this much: on any

view, “global warming” is not one of them.

Toxic Environmental Fall-Out From ClimateGate Continues

The vile, putrid underside of the "environmental" movement is revealed....
Peter

The Real Enemy Of Society: Environmentalists

Read and follow the following hi-lited links by clicking on them to get an idea of the venom behind the rhetoric and ideology of the "green" or "environmental" movement. Their true nature is being revealed as the myth of man-caused global warming crumbles amidst the scandal and corruption exposed by ClimateGate.
Peter

Green Hate

The collapse of the global warming cult has greens in a mean mood.

Just a few weeks ago Greenpeace uttered threats against skeptics, and when called out for it tried to spin it before finally hiding the offending article.

Treehugger, a popular hippie hang-out, practically celebrates dead miners:

“…I really don’t care about the miners. If you work for the oil/coal industry you’re working to destroy the environment and you deserve whatever karma throws your way…”

This isn’t some minor phenomenon, calls to jail skeptics come from the leaders of the green movement, who want public trials held, possibly leading to the execution of skeptics.

As the liberal media obsesses about Tea Party ‘extremists’, the real thugs are in plain sight. Funny how that doesn’t make the headlines.

Obama Administration Stupidity About Man-Caused Global Warming

Try and understand the logic of this. ClimateGate, among many recent developments, such as the failure of the climate meeting in Copenhagen, and the revelation that the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is hopelessly flawed, fraudulent, and decidedly un-scientific, and the case for man-caused global warming and/or climate change is dead.

With that clear, why is the Obama administration going to spend (waste) another $154 million to try and "capture" and store (sequester) harmless carbon dioxide gas from the burning of coal in a power plant? Let's say it again. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, in spite of what the politically driven, Obama controlled EPA might say. We exhale CO2 with every breath; plants need it to grow, and yet our wonderful government is going to spend another $154 million of taxpayers money to capture this harmless gas and pump it underground. It doesn't get much more idiotic than that.

Note how in the following article, published today in USA Today, that the "green-washed", ignorant reporter(?) and even the Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu uses the term "carbon pollution", when anyone who is half-informed knows he's talking about simple carbon dioxide!

This is carefully calculated deception. I think Americans are beginning to catch on. Will Congress? Will Obama? Not any time soon. They have their agenda to follow. To heck with logic and common sense.
Peter

Clean coal? Obama funds research to capture carbon

Source

Al Ranson, a project manager for Alstom, readies a new facility last month that will capture the carbon dioxide produced by We Energies' coal-fired power plant in Pleasant Prairie, Wis.

CAPTION

None

Can coal really be clean? Environmentalists may be skeptical, but President Obama is moving ahead with efforts to create non-polluting coal.

On Tuesday, the Department of Energy announced that it will give up to $154 million to NRG Energy, a Texas-based company, to create a facility that will capture coal's carbon and store it underground, thereby reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. It's one of several such federally funded coal projects.

"Advancing our carbon capture and storage technology will create new jobs in America and reduce our carbon pollution output," Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for physics, said in a statement.

In his State of the Union address, Obama called for a diverse mix of clean energy sources, including -- to the dismay of many environmentalists -- nuclear power plants and "clean coal technologies."

"We're highly skeptical," Bruce Nilles, the Sierra Club's national coal campaign director, says of Obama's plans to clean coal by capturing its carbon, according to a recent story by McClatchy Newspapers. He and other critics say it will be too costly to retrofit existing coal plants with such technology.

The Sierra Club says coal, which provides about half of U.S. electricity, should instead be phased out by 2030 and replaced by renewable power sources and energy efficiency, including efficient uses of natural gas.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, like other environmental groups, says there's no such thing as "clean" coal. France Beinecke, president of its New York City chapter, says "every single step in the coal power cycle is dirty," but she agrees with Obama's plan to fund efforts to clean it.

NRDC believes that a technology known as carbon capture and storage for coal plants should be included in the (climate) bill. This is what President Obama was referring to as "clean coal." We don't think that term is appropriate, but the technology really will reduce global warming pollution from power plants.

How does this technology work?

It removes carbon dioxide from coal's smokestack emissions, compresses it and pumps it deep underground, where it's stored. Such techniques for large coal plants have doubled the cost of producing power, so research is aimed at finding more cost-effective methods.

NRG Energy, which will match the Energy Department's funding, will build a 60-megawatt carbon capture demonstration facility at its plant in Thompson, Texas.

"Development and deployment of these carbon capture technologies at scale, not only in the United States but also worldwide as well, is essential if we are to meet successfully the challenge of global climate change," David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy, said in a statement.

Scheduled to begin operating in 2013, the project is designed to capture 90% of incoming carbon dioxide, compress it and use it to enhance oilfield recovery operations.

A report to be released Wednesday by Advanced Resources International, a research and consulting firm, says capturing carbon and pumping it into oil reservoirs could increase U.S. oil production.

ClimateGate: The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Laid Bare

The following article summarizes what ClimateGate is all about. A related tragedy is how the American mainstream media is under-reporting and ignoring this important information. Of course they have played a major role in this great hoax. Everyone who reads this and many related stories should pass them around to as many people as possible. Only knowledge and truth will keep us free!
Peter

The Scientific Collapse of Man-made Global Warming

By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a nuclear scientist

The underlying science of man-made global warming has always been quite thin and tenuous, with little hard measurable evidence to support the hypothesis. In fact many temperature stations have shown either no warming or actual cooling over the past 80 years or more.

Similarly exaggerations by many UN nations of sea level changes have flourished and in turn blamed the United States for imagined damages. These are alleged by many nations, even when actual sea level measurements show little changes from the estimated 8 inches per century which has gone on for millennia (http://tinyurl.com/ykb3ctc).

Even though the man-made global warming theory is now collapsing scientifically, it is utterly amazing to realize that many of the most powerful leaders and governments in the world had bought into fiction. Now named Climategate, this was aided and abetted by most (but not all) of the media, the greens, Hollywood, even the educational system.

Skeptics have been pointing to the dearth of such evidence which, if it had been widely understood, would have ended the exaggerations. Actual measured scientific evidence often does that.

The UN and its many sub-organizations have led the charge in promoting the scare around the world, with most of their members subscribing to it. The billions that have been spent for global warming research also suggests that these billions actually helped promote the failed science involved.

After all, the goal of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not a better understanding of the climate. It was intended only to find any man-made influences on the climate. International politics ruled the effort, not the pursuit of science. It was no coincidence that only the wealthy nations, especially the capitalist US, were found to be the villains.

Near the end of November 2009 a huge global warming eruption occurred when thousand emails, documents, and computer codes were release from the files of one of he world’s major institutes in global warming. This was the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU).

These findings were stunning to anyone familiar with the rules of science and the scientific method. Climate data manipulation, massaging, modification, and even omissions were common as indicated from the texts of the emails exchanged among world experts. Even worse, much of the original temperature data has now been lost. This means that that no replication of these studies starting with original data in the IPCC Assessment Reports is now possible. Such replications always begin with the raw data which are no longer available. To attempt replication with contaminated and corrupted data is simply not possible.

It’s been 60 days since the release of this information, with little it being reported in the US media. See link (http://tinyurl.com/y9enj2d). However, a lot of information about the man-made global warming collapse is being reported in the foreign media.

The head of the CRU has taken a leave of absence and now may be facing charges of fraud by the British government (http://tinyurl.com/yjec7ry). More members of the CRU team as well as American instigators may be charged since so many were involved.

Others are writing excellent analyses of the released CRU findings, given the short time for such important efforts. One of them is a 149 page analysis is called “Climategate Analysis” by John P. Costella (http://tinyurl.com/ydkd3cx). Costella is both a mathematical and statistical expert. He writes about the impact of Climategate fraud on the exacting and rigorous nature of honest science (p.5):

“Climategate has shattered that myth (of scientific rigor). It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.”

Another excellent analysis of Climategate has been performed by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. It is titled “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?” and is 111 pages of detailed analyses (http://tinyurl.com/ydmdtqp). These two analyses (and there are others) literally destroy nearly all of the scientific nature of the IPCC reports and pronouncements. They show that man-made CO2 still has little or nothing to do with climate, and most importantly has a great deal to do with international politics of the UN and allies.

D’Aleo and Watts provide 15 amazing summary points for policy makers describing the scientific malpractice among the UN, the IPCC and the rest of the global warming movement:

* 1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. MF---Such tampering with data is utterly unprofessional.

* 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. MF---Little mention has ever been made regarding the actual quality of temperature data and the need for control of high quality data.

* 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. MF---It now seems clear that the global warming movement was hell-bent in producing a man-made global warming scare by a variety of data manipulations.

* 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. MF--- This is stunning. Try to imagine adult scientists trying to show climate warming by excluding temperature data from thousands of the world’s coldest stations. Amazing and dreadfully unethical.

* 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

* 6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

* 7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

* 8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

* 9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

* 10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

* 11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”. MF---This is important to understanding that these United States climate agencies were also very much involved with the climate deceptions.

* 12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

* 13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

* 14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

* 15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

The main stream media of the US have scarcely reported any of these skullduggeries, which means that the American public is essentially uninformed. We also learned during President Obama’s recent speech that even he has not been informed about the man-made global warming collapse.

This does not speak well of the wisdom of the president and especially of his vaunted science advisors. Obama’s NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, for example, is still under the belief that the IPCC is "the gold standard for authoritative scientific information on climate change because of the rigorous way in which they are prepared, reviewed, and approved." Unfortunately for some, the "gold standard" is at the heart of Climategate. (http://tinyurl.com/yd92q7n).

SOURCE

The Global Warming Gravy Train, Or How A Myth Is Born And Perpetuated

In the article below, Dr. David Evans clearly explains how the idea of man-caused global warming began, how it grew, and how it became entrenched. There should be a lesson here, one which I don't think we've learned. That lesson is and should be, politics and science do not mix.

When the State influences science through its funding, or grant-giving, and the mainstream mass media joins forces with the State, then we have the creation of myths and everyone loses. I think that is where we are at now. Hopefully we'll wake up before this man-caused global warming fiasco costs us (Americans) and the World even more.
Peter

"I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train"
By Dr. David Evans

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.

In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.

2. Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.

3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!

4. There were no other credible causes of global warming.

This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:

2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.

3.The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!

It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.

4.There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.

The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!

Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.

But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?

None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.

I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.



Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.

Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.

Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.

Dr. David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak.

The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Is Evil And Kills

The myth of man-caused global warming is evil because it kills people, literally. Consider for a moment what it must be like to be one of the billions of people on Earth who have no electricity, no fuel and no vehicles. These are people who can barely produce enough food to feed themselves, much less provide the other necessities of life.

Now consider how cruel it is to deny them the fossil fuels needed to generate that electricity, power those vehicles, produce and deliver that food, provide needed jobs, and do a host of other things most of us take for granted. Then think about how unrealistic it is to claim that this needed energy can be provided by wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol from food crops like corn.

Now consider the efforts to stop global warming or control climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Ask yourselves who is truly evil, those who produce those fossil fuels and generate that electricity, or those who promote "cap and trade (taxation)", all in the name of "saving the environment". Al Gore, how can you look at yourself in the mirror. Consider the following article.
Peter

"Notable Quotes"

"The real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s that the almost total absence of electricity is keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.

Those anti-electricity policies are keeping us impoverished. Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires ….. Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against humanity. "

Source

Fiona Kobusingye, a Co-ordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda:
More...

Environmental Group Strives To Stifle Debate On Global Warming At Colleges

Here is a prime example of the ongoing effort to stifle the scientific inquiry into the real causes of global warming. This time an "environmental advocacy group" called Focus the Nation is taking their totally unscientific, biased message to college campuses across the country. They say, again, that the "debate is over". They insist now is the time to act, to limit "greenhouse gas" emissions.

Well, what nonsense! This is all based on the UN's flawed IPCC report and the political machinations of Al Gore's true believers. "Focus The Nation" is basing their efforts on what some experts call the biggest scam, or swindle, in history.......promoting the MYTH of man-caused global warming. Now they're trying to brainwash our eager, but naive youth.

We will try to reveal the truth. The articles, comments, essays, and science reproduced here on this blog reveal some of the truth. Spread the word.
Peter


Global Warming Teach-In Coming to Campuses Nationwide
By Evan Moore CNSNews.com Correspondent January 23, 2008(CNSNews.com)

- On Jan. 31, the environmental advocacy group Focus the Nation will hold a teach-in on more than 1,000 college campuses nationwide to discuss solutions for global warming. The event is based on the premise that scientific debate about the existence of global warming is "over." Many critics, however, say the teach-in is an attempt to end debate and advance "draconian" public policies.

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Alex Tinker, public relations director for Focus the Nation, said the idea behind the teach-in model is inclusion: It "engages students across all disciplines on a campus, not just the usual suspects who would come to a special environmentally oriented event, so that you can actually reach an audience big enough to reach that critical mass to get real legislation passed in Washington."The teach-in, as defined by Focus the Nation's Web site, "is a day when an entire school turns its attention to a single issue -- when faculty, students, and staff put aside business as usual, and focus the full weight of campus engagement on one topic."

Tinker noted that the majority of hosting universities are not planning on halting classes altogether, but many are planning on incorporating the message of the teach-in into the content of regularly scheduled classes."The premise behind Focus the Nation is that 'The science is in. Global warming is real," said Tinker. "There's no longer a meaningful scientific debate about whether or not global warming is caused by human kind - the debate should be about what policy solutions we need to enact to address it."

Tinker said Focus the Nation is encouraging students to adopt policy solutions they deem prescriptive and to lobby their congressmen on global warming. Some of the solutions that Focus the Nation offers include a tax on emissions, increased support for biofuels, and the creation of 1 million new "green jobs" - workers who would service America's infrastructure to be more ecologically friendly.

Critics blast George C. Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank, criticized Tinker and Focus the Nation. "I've talked to way too many scientists - many of whom are on the IPCC [the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] - who look at the data and don't see a human footprint," Landrith told Cybercast News Service. "They don't see this as something that we're causing, and they don't see this as catastrophic. They see it as natural and largely benign. We definitely and absolutely disagree with the idea that 'science is certain, the debate is over, blah blah blah.'"

"If the debate were over, there wouldn't be literally hundreds of scientists stepping up and saying 'No, this is wrong,' and people like Al Gore and his ilk wouldn't be working so hard to make sure that they cut off discussion," said Landrith. "The truth is that they're engaging in polemics, not science."Fluctuations in climate have always occurred throughout history, he said. In the latter part of the 20th century there was a "modest, one degree warming," said Landrith, which is "well within the natural norms." Before Congress adopts "draconian regulatory regimes" to supposedly fight global warming - killing thousands of jobs in the process - we need to ensure "we have our science right," he said.

Some reaction
George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., will host another Focus the Nation teach-in on Jan. 29. In an interview with Cybercast News Service, the university's press secretary, Dan Walsch, said, "This is an issue that a number of faculty members are heavily interested in, on a professional and personal level," and after a series of meetings, the school decided to hold the teach-in.Walsch added that the school does not have a policy position on global warming.

Dane Styler, managing director of Connect2Mason, a Web site focusing on the GMU community, told Cybercast News Service that students had just returned to school on Tuesday and there was not much campus buzz on the teach-in. He noted, however, that GMU has devoted itself to eco-friendly measures for the past few years. These include developing a sustainability office to highlight measures on campus to improve the college's environmental impact. Styler said he thinks global warming is real, manmade, and poses a threat to civilization. "The data's there," he said.

"We're producing enough gasses and chemicals that there's actually been a change in the [atmospheric] temperature." Celia Taylor, a GMU alumna, disagreed with Styler but told Cybercast News Service that she was nonetheless pleased with her alma mater. "Even if I disagree on the stance on the issue, I have always applauded Mason for being involved," she said. "Doing so not only makes the institution a national name but also involves, engages, and encourages its students to think critically, even to disagree," Taylor said."I will continue to vocalize my support of the school and its involvement in current issues at the same time that I vocalize my disagreement on this particular issue," she added.

source: