Wednesday, December 9, 2009
"Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta "Distinguished Agrologist"), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
We've covered the Climategate scandal extensively. It is the most important scandal of our time. Climate alarmists are trying to impoverish the world, ostensibly in order to cool it down but really, in my view, to achieve the liberal holy grail of government control over everything. The scandal comes along at a critical moment to cast doubt on whether the "scientists" behind the global warming scare are doing science at all. Rather, their own words suggest that they are engaging in a combination of politics and fraud.
The liberal media have studiously averted their eyes from the scandal--a common posture for them these days--but, nevertheless, Americans are deeply skeptical about the warmist enterprise. Scott Rasmussen finds that the liberals' claim that the scientific argument about global warming is over is roundly rejected by the American people:
Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming. [T]he latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
So, by more than two to one, Americans believe the debate is alive and well. Not only that, by a stunning 59 percent to 26 percent margin--also better than two to one--Americans say that it is either very likely (35%) or somewhat likely (24%) that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
What's curious is that most people aren't basing this judgment on the Climategate scandal, which fewer than half of Americans have followed. (No wonder, since if you're relying on network news and your local newspaper, your chance of knowing about the story is probably zero.) Rather, while Climategate is no doubt a factor, most Americans seem to be relying on their innate anti-authoritarian bent.
It is perhaps a sad fact that most Americans are skeptical of what they are told by politicians, businessmen, college professors and other supposed authority figures. An extreme case is the United Nations: Rasmussen finds that only 22% of Americans consider the UN to be "a reliable source of information on global warming." So much for the IPCC "consensus" on climate change.
Whether we would be better off if we were a more trusting people is an interesting question. In this particular case, however, the skepticism is amply justified.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
If the MSM accepts that there is a fraud what will they have to write about?
Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
First understand that they buy the hypothesis that Global Warming is a real danger and that it is caused by man made emissions of carbon dioxide (co2).
Their arguments are with the solution our inept congress is trying to foist on us, namely Cap N Trade with Offsets. They simply and eloquently present compelling logic and facts that expose the solution as ineffective. It won't help reduce co2 and at it's worst creates "perverse" incentives that will actually make the problem worse while enriching scoundrels that know how to exploit advantage from huge, unmanageable government programs. These people are called "rent seekers".
The 10 min video The Huge Mistake is organized as follows:
The Big Lie
The Big Ripoff
The Real solution.
Here is alink to their blog if you want to read more =>http://www.carbonfees.org/home/
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Must see 4 min video
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
Shared via AddThis
Friday, October 2, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, the definition is ... “the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.’”
For more on this click here
Per the author: " Issues that are put into the category of “post-normal science” are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness."
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Quote from our president illustrates his science acumen:
At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.
We get the government we deserve.
This graphic illustrates the winners and losers - no surprise here for those of us who have spent at least an hour or two paying attention!!!!
For more details you can go here.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Most annoying to me, because I am a mechanical engineer and somewhat learned in the thermal sciences and scientific method, is how the socialist and environmentalist have united to exploit the Global Warming idea to achieve their compatible goals. Even though it all unproven theory they have managed to exploit the ignorance of the masses to launch the largest governmental power grab in history. The greatest VICTIM of all, our MOTHER EARTH, exploited and despoiled by the ruthless greedy Capitalist, not to mention the spoiled American middle class with their excessive and over indulgent consumerism. These villains are easy to point at and accuse because they have no collective voice in the debate. The Elites control the microphone. Their message is an endlessly repeating mantra. Most middle class Americans are riddled with guilt over their so called excesses, the big SUV, the few extra square feet in their house, the thermostat set to low, the occasional steak dinner, etc. BAAADDD Americans, shame on you.
Who else but Big Government can fix all this and deliver us. "We are in good hands".
There are some bright lights out there. They get little media spotlight but if you search you can find them. This little story is an example. See how one ordinary man, with a an extra ordinary amount of courage, stands up in a crowded room and speaks out. The link is here but I copied the short story here in its entirety.
My Confrontation with a Global Warming Climate Change Activist [UPDATED]
[UPDATE: It was the opinion of a reader from this synagogue that my depiction of it was too harsh and painted it in a bad light. Therefore, I would like to clarify that, politics aside, this is a wonderful place with a history of doing good for its students, its congregants, and community. I have worked there for many years and I wouldn't be working there if I felt otherwise. It was never my intention to use this post to disaparage this synagogue, only to express my distaste for what I view as politically-slanted programs.]
This was a very exhilerating evening. The synagogue at which I teach invited a global warming climate change alarmist to give a presentation to our 8th-10th graders. Actually, it’s the second climate change speaker in two years. (This synagogue, a Reform institution, is hopelessly left-wing.) When Al Gore’s famous movie came out, a Greenpeace activist was invited to show and then give her spiel.
Tonight, the guest who came was from the Climate Project. I never heard of them until this week, so when I visited their site, I couldn’t believe it. This was an army of volunteer Al Gore clones who go all over the country indoctrinating young skulls full of mush[*] about the dangers of climate change, and who publish propaganda about Big Oil, Big Auto, bought-off skeptics, greedy Republicans, etc.
Admittedly I chickened out of the Greenpeace presentation from two years ago. I was neither a parent nor a teacher of an 8-10th grader, so I just skipped it. But I did send an email to the rabbis expressing my concern that what had been done to our students was not religious education but rather political indoctrination. The message clearly didn’t have an impact.
This time, I decided to stay. Hell, if G’tmo terrorists can handle the world-class baklavah (as reported this week by Mark Steyn who has been subbing for El Rushbo), then I can handle an hour-long presentation by a climate change enviro-wacko.
During the presentation I sat in the back with a small group of teachers and parents who were skeptics like me. We watched in amazement and gave each other appalled looks every time this presenter showed another slide borrowed from An Inconvenient Truth. All the drowning polar bears, the flooding rivers, melting glaciers, rising oceans were there. Then came the graphs with the temperature increases and CO2 increases, the puffing smokestacks and vehicle-packed highways, the exploding population rates and the America-heavy coal and oil consumption. You get the picture.
The final slide of the presentation was the best part. No, it was not Al Gore lecturing us on high. It was … ready for this? Barack Obama, posing in D.C. with Abe Lincoln behind him.
Nahhh, this isn’t a political presentaiton. It’s purely of religious, moral value.
At least this is what the powers that be at the synagogue keep telling me.
But there was one thing that bothered me more than the heartbreaking slides of bodies floating in flooded rivers in China and devastation from Hurricane Katrina, and more than the glaringly slanted defense-attorney-style delivery (it seemed from the presentation that the history of the planet Earth started around 1950).
It was that so many of these slides and so many utterances by the speaker caused a crowd of about 80 young people to gasp in horror.
This person was really getting to them.
Anyway, I survived the hour-long presentation and slide show. When it came time to hear questions, I raised my hand and said,
“Thank you for your presentation. Doing this often, you’re probably used to every crowd having at least one climate change skeptic.”
“I’m that person. And if you came and saw the house I lived in you’d know I wasn’t being paid by Big Oil to have my position.” (That drew a laugh or two.)
Then, with the entire audience of about 80 kids turned around facing me, I started by saying that I understand that, as a presenter, she’s coming with a certain agenda: Just like a lawyer in a courtroom she is going to say certain things and not say certain things, and say things a particular way. I then addressed the kids and told them they owed it to themselves to go home and do their own research and look at all sides of the issue.
I then said that her slides had a lot of emotional impact on the kids, but that a lot of them gave false or slanted information. I called her on the drowning polar bears. Aside from pointing out the fact that their Latin name is Ursa Maritimus, I noted research concluding that of the 13 species of Canadian polar bears, 11 are stable or increasing in number.
I also got the chance to address a slide of two side-by-side shots of melting Mount Kilimanjaro—one shot from around 1970 and one from now. I told the crowd, who was now paying full attention to me, that the mountain had already lost more than half its glacier surface area in the 50 years prior to Hemingway’s The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936 than in the 70 years since. (Check on-line, inter alia, the works of Bjørn’s Lomborg).
Finally, I argued the factories belching black smoke into the sky was misleading. Simply by exhaling, I asked the kids to notice that what’s coming out of my mouth is invisible! More laughs, and even some aaah’s and hmmm’s. I added that I was of course not a fan of factories puffing black smoke into the sky but whatever that was, it was not CO2. I also specified that even though she had correctly included water vapor among the Earth’s greenhouse gases, she never said it accounts for about 75% of the greenhouse effect and is perfectly natural. CO2 is a fraction of fraction of all greenhouse gases, and human-made a fraction of a fraction of that. If she had mentioned this, her entire premise would have been shattered—which of course is why it was never brought up.
To the speaker’s credit, she was very courteous and respectful and she allowed me go on for quite a few minutes uninterrupted. I should also mention that even though she might be a GW hysteric, she was far from hysterical; she was quite calm and delivered what would have been considered a very successful business presentation or courtroom defense.
What followed my monologue, however, was something that took me truly by surprise. Quite a number of kids in the audience were giving me the thumbs up and silent-clapping. Some parents were too. There was even one parent behind me who had her hand raised in preparation to continue my argument with the presenter [UPDATE: Bzzt. No. Turns out she was preparing to argue with me! Ya can’t win ’em all.], but her kids, who were in the audience, were begging her not to start trouble and embarrass them!
In a nutshell, it was a thrilling and bumpy ride. Did I sabotage this presentation? Probably. Were some people in attendance, like my boss, angry at me for making waves? Maybe a little.
But the response I got from the kids was worth it. There might be hope for some of these young skulls full of mush[*] after all.
One battle down, several more to go.
[* For those of you unfamiliar with, and therefore possibly offended by "young skulls full of mush," the phrase is simply a euphemism meaning impressionable young minds which, according to its coiner Rush Limbaugh, are easily indoctrinated to accept politically-laced but factually-baseless information.]
Monday, June 1, 2009
This is a first in a series of articles that promise to systematically unfold the layers that hid who is profiteering from Global Warming.
In the quote below he shows the brilliant strategy to enlist scientists needed to legitimize the theory and to ele vate their postion in a way that would marginalize any scientists who disagree,..
The groundwork had been laid well, not least by entering into relationships with scientists who, Enron expected, would further its cause (James Hansen, the scientist who more than any other is responsible for bringing the possibility of climate-change catastrophe to the public, was among the scientists Enron commissioned). Just as shrewdly, Enron saw the importance in silencing the scientists who didn’t accept the alarmism that had driven the Kyoto Protocol. In a 1998 letter, Enron CEO Ken Lay, among others, asked president Clinton to appoint a bi-partisan “Blue-Ribbon Commission” designed to pronounce on the science and, in effect, marginalize the skeptics.
Friday, May 22, 2009
House commitee just passed the Climate Bill
It is 946 pages!!!
Do you think any of these clowns read it?
Waxman's comments are priceless. "I'm relying on the scientists...The IPCC (The UN Internationalal Panel on Climate Change)
What are we paying these guys for. Regulation by the pound?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Here's a teaser quote but please read the whole thing:
Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.
He refers to the actions in Washington as being Imperialists and I agree. They are out of touch and more interested in serving the special interest groups that got them elected. When was the last time your interest was served? Oh I forgot it was when the king threw some coins to the crowd as he drove by ( tax deduction for 95% of Americans). TAX Deductions - the ultimate Power to manipulate the unwashed masses they have been exploiting for years.
WE ARE NOT BEING SERVED. What more proof do you need when you can clearly see that this insanity not only destroys our economy but does NOT SIGNIFICANTLY affect the Global Temperature.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Good read on the issue of car ownership and why it is cheaper to own a car then to live in "walkable" neighborhoods like NY City
I’ve previously suggested two reasons why dense cities are so expensive: (1) dense cities create transportational and space inefficiencies; and (2) dense cities attract liberal voters who elect liberal politicians who enact dumb laws which increase the cost of living.
The environmental extremist want this POWER. It avoids the messy fights in the legislative process. You can't let the PEOPLE decide. They are too ignorant. The Elites who know best can achieve their ends very subtly by selectively going after emitters. They can outright shut you down or force you to buy offsets (extortion in my opinion) or just threaten these actions. Prudent, risk adverse businesses will have to play ball or move to another country. No matter how you cut it WE LOOSE. It will pit neighbors against each other. "Look at the Jones, mowing their lawn again and emiiting toxic gases. Party ballons filled with EPA certified non toxic gases - only $25/dozen.
You might be shaking your head and thinking "Why would any rationale person do this if CO2 is not a health hazard?" Let me borrow a quote from a fellow blogger Mikey's Muses ... From the Antipodes
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
People that think like this are infiltrating government, academic and scientific organizations. This has been going on for some time. When they speak they they raise ALARM and the media feeds on ALARM so the mantra is repeated and heard endlessly in the classroom, in commercials, nightly news, front page in the newspapers.
What is the truth? Simple question. Impossible answer. I have devoted a significant amount of my time to study the Global Warming issue. The science is complex and will give you a headache if you try to dig into it. The Environmental extremist know this and use the terms "settled science" (it isn't) or "the debate is over" (it isn't). These terms infiltrate the dialog and when uttered by a "trusted" source achieve the desired affect of quieting the rabble (that's you and me).
Read the linked post above or some of my past post on Ralional Ignorances to get more insights.
For what it is worth I sincerely believe that the science was hijacked by ideologues to further a political agenda motivated by elites who want the POWER to regulate and socially engineer rest of us. They know what is best for us. They buy off the real scientists by lavishing huge grants on anyone that will support the thesis and unleash harsh admonitions and character attacks on anyone who is a "denialist"
There are 3 classes of players in all this;
Those that promote it for ideological reasons
Those that can capitalize on it
The rest of us
Where do you fit in?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Take another look at this video and put it in perspective. Hat tip to my buddy Pat.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
It essentially takes congress out of the equation and give EPA authority to regulate CO2 emissions and emitters (that includes you!!)
Absurd!! you say. I say get your head out of the sand.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a noted scientist on the subject and I have copied his latest article (see below) and link here. Note the link has some good graphs.
Below you will find a series of Q & A's for the lay person to help undersatand the fundamental issues and arguments. I believe it is worth spending 30 minutes or so to study. It will at least give you more knowledge than Katie, Brian, Charlie (network anchors) give you.
(last update: 4/20/2009, 10:21 a.m.)
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove climate models right; a single experiment can prove climate models wrong.”- adapted from Albert Einstein quote.
Two days ago, on April 17, the EPA ruled that greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) endanger human health and welfare. There is now a 60 day public comment period for people to give their opinions on this ruling before the EPA takes the next step and actually implements regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
To help out, I’ve whipped up some commonly asked questions and their answers (below) on global warming to help you better understand the issues involved. As you will see, the science of global warming is far from ‘settled’. It is only because of the political and financial ramifications of global warming that so many people (mainly politicians and those who have vested interests) are trying to convince you otherwise.
IS GLOBAL WARMING HAPPENING NOW?There is no way to know if warming is ‘happening now’. Because natural climate fluctuations on a year-to-year basis are so large, we will only recognize warming (or cooling) several years down the road when it appears in the rearview mirror. The most important statistic to me is that global average temperatures stopped rising in 2001, as shown in the following chart of global tropospheric temperatures that John Christy and I derive from satellite measurements.
As you can see, we might have even entered a new cooling trend. The claim that the warming trend over the last 50 to 100 years is continuing right now, or that it is even ‘accelerating’ is pure speculation, based upon the assumption that what has happened in recent decades will continue into the future.
ISN’T IT WARMER NOW THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THOUSANDS OF YEARS?Well, look at the following recently published proxy reconstruction of global temperatures over the last 2000 years. This graph is based upon 18 previously published temperature proxies, and so provides the most robust estimate available to date. It can be seen that significant warming and cooling periods of 50 to 100 years in duration seem to be the rule, rather than the exception. There were probably even warmer years during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) than we have seen in recent years. Even the warmth of the ‘record’ warm El Nino year in 1998 (see temperature chart above) might well have been surpassed several times during major El Nino events that occurred during the MWP. Unfortunately, there is no way to know how warm individual years were a thousand years ago…the graph below is made up of thirty-year averages. I added the dotted line toward the end showing the modern thermometer record.
ISN’T DISAPPEARING SEA ICE IN THE ARCTIC PROOF OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING?Warming, yes. Manmade, no. As can be seen in the following chart, it was just as warm in the Arctic (or nearly as warm) in the 1930s, with loss of sea ice and changing wildlife patterns reported in newspapers. The water levels in the Great Lakes reached record lows during this time, too…just as has happened again in recent years.It should be remembered that we have had accurate satellite measurements of sea ice only since 1979, a period which has been entirely during the positive (warming) phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see graph below). The PDO is an index of weather patterns over the North Pacific Ocean that flips every 30 years or so. The coincidence that the satellite era started right after the “Great Climate Shift of 1977″ has probably biased what we consider to be ‘normal’ for global climate. In fact, based upon the 2,000-year temperature graph shown previously, one might argue that there is no such thing as ‘normal’ climate.
ISN’T ARCTIC SEA CONTINUING TO MELT FASTER AND FASTER?No. As can be seen in the graph below (updated here through April 18, 2009), 2007 was the year when summer ice melt resulted in a 30-year record low in sea ice coverage. In 2008, the ice recovered somewhat. And from looking at 2009, we might well see further recovery this summer. Based upon the PDO index (above) it could be we have entered a new cooling phase of the PDO, which might explain this sea ice recovery, as well as our recent return to colder, snowier winters in the Northern Hemisphere.
AREN’T THE POLAR BEARS DYING FROM DISAPPEARING SEA ICE?Generally speaking, no. While 2 sub-populations of polar bears appear to be threatened by the recent reduction in Arctic sea ice, the other dozen or more sub-populations are either stable or growing. Polar bears survived previous periods of Arctic warmth, and they will survive this one, too.
Polar bears, especially the cubs, tug at our heartstrings because they are so cute, and so make wonderful ‘poster children’ for global warming. What is ironic is that the polar bear is the only predator that will actively track down and eat a human being. The following two photos were sent to me by someone in Alaska…a polar bear that was waiting for a man to return to his truck.You can learn the truth about the polar bear issue from a polar bear researcher here.
WHAT ABOUT THE COLLAPSING ICE SHELVES IN ANTARCTICA?Just as Greenland glaciers will continue to flow downhill and break off into the sea as snow keeps falling on Greenland, the Antarctic ice sheet also slowly flows toward the sea. But in Antarctica, this forms ice ‘shelves’ that can extend out over the ocean a considerable distance. These ice shelves ring the entire continent, and eventually they must break off and float away. It could be that ice shelf collapse events become more common when warmer ocean waters affect a portion of the continent, as has been the case in recent years. Maybe a period of more rapid ice shelf collapse also occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago…we just don’t know.
On a whole, Antarctica has not warmed. And because it is so cold there, even a few degrees of warming will not cause the ice sheet to melt anyway. In fact, as can be seen in the following graph, sea ice around Antarctica has increased over the same 30-year period of time that Arctic sea ice has decreased.
ISN’T CARBON DIOXIDE A DANGEROUS GAS?Well if you breathe pure CO2, you will die — from a lack of oxygen, not because CO2 is poisonous. But if you breathe pure oxygen for very long, that will also kill you. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth; photosynthesis by plants on land and by plankton in the ocean depend upon it. And without those forms of life, all the animals (and we humans) would die as well. For something as essential as CO2, it verges on the bizarre for people like Al Gore to liken carbon dioxide to sewage.
BUT WE CAN’T KEEP PUMPING CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE FOREVER, CAN WE?No…and we won’t. But the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is pretty trivial: As of 2009, there are only 38 or 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules. The following graph shows how much the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen in the last 50 years at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The graph has a vertical scale that only extends to 1% of the atmosphere, and as can be seen, the increase in CO2 is barely visible. This graph is not a trick…it looks different from what you are used to seeing because CO2 is usually plotted with a greatly magnified vertical scale to make the CO2 rise look more dramatic. Yes, we might double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by late in this century…but 2 times a very small number is still a very small number.
ISN’T CO2 THE ATMOSPHERE’S MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS?No. Water vapor accounts for about 85% or 90% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, clouds account for another 5% or 10%. CO2 represents only about 3%, methane even less. You will see quite a bit of variability in the above percentages because they can only be calculated based upon theory, and involve a variety of assumptions. I have greatest confidence in the 3% number for the CO2 portion, which we have verified with our own calculations: The direct effect of doubling of CO2 would only be a 1 deg. C warming of the surface (this is not disputed, see below), and when you compare that to the 33 deg. C of surface warming due to all greenhouse components of the atmosphere, you get 3%.
BUT DON’T THE COMPUTER CLIMATE MODELS PREDICT SERIOUS GLOBAL WARMING…EVEN FROM THE LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE?Yes, but most of the warming produced by climate models is NOT directly from the CO2, but from assumed changes in clouds and water vapor in response to the small CO2-induced warming tendency. And this is the models’ Achilles heel. While all of those models now change clouds with warming in ways that amplify that warming, some by a catastrophic amount, there is increasing evidence that clouds in the real climate system behave in just the opposite way (peer reviewed papers of ours here and here). This could result in a doubling of atmospheric CO2 causing less than 1 deg. F of warming by the end of this century.
BUT WE’VE ALREADY SEEN 1 DEGREE OF WARMING…SO, WHAT COULD HAVE CAUSED IT?My latest research (as yet unpublished) suggests most of the warming we’ve experienced in the last 100 years is due to natural changes in cloud cover…possibly caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation mentioned above. Something climate modelers apparently don’t appreciate is that it would only take about a 1% change in global cloud cover to cause ‘global warming’. Curiously, climate modelers do not believe this happens. Exactly why they don’t, I haven’t been able to figure out. Probably because we’ve not had accurate enough long-term observations of global cloud cover to document any such changes. But just because such changes are too small for us to measure doesn’t mean they do not exist. Most of us who were trained as meteorologists find 1% changes in global cloud cover to be entirely plausible, probably the result of natural, chaotic changes in weather patterns coupled to small chaotic changes in ocean circulation.
HASN’T THE “FINGERPRINT” OF MANMADE WARMING ALREADY BEEN FOUND?No. Climate modelers claim they can only explain global warming by including greenhouse gas increases in their models. But that claim is based upon 2 critical assumptions: (1) the climate system is very sensitive to increasing CO2, a consequence of their climate models not handling clouds properly, and (2) as mentioned above, a lack of accurate observations over a long enough period of time to document potential natural, and stronger, warming mechanisms…such as a slight decrease in global cloud cover letting more sunlight in.
Another “fingerprint” claim is that global warming has been stronger over land than ocean, as would be expected with more greenhouse gases. But warming of the oceans and land in response to fewer clouds would be indistinguishable from warming caused by more carbon dioxide. A decrease in oceanic cloudiness would warm the oceans, which would then send more humid airmasses over land. And since water vapor is our main greenhouse gas, the land will warm in response. The land warming would be then be stronger than the ocean warming because the heat capacity of land is less than that of the ocean. So, don’t be fooled when you hear claims that the “fingerprint” of manmade warming has been found…it hasn’t. In fact, there is no known human “fingerprint”.
HAVEN’T SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS LIKE HURRICANES BECOME MORE COMMON IN RECENT YEARS?No, only storm damage has increased. This is because people keep building along coastlines and in other areas prone to severe weather. And the more stuff we build, the more targets there are for hurricanes and tornadoes to destroy. Some of the records you have heard about for strongest hurricane, etc., are mostly because our technological ability to measure these storms has improved so much in recent years. There is no way to know if some recent storms (e.g. Katrina when it was in the central Gulf of Mexico) were stronger than major hurricanes that occurred in the early 20th Century, before we had weather radar, high resolution satellite data, and instrumented planes to fly into them.
WHAT ABOUT OCEAN ACIDIFICATION FROM MORE CO2?The chemistry of the ocean is still poorly understood from the standpoint of how it varies over time, and how it is controlled. There is a common view among oceanographers that extra atmospheric CO2 has caused the average pH of the ocean to be reduced from 8.18 to 8.10 since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But pH varies widely across the global oceans, and that estimated decrease is more of a ‘theoretically-calculated expectation’ than it is an actual observation. A minority view I have heard is that the buffering capacity of the ocean will prevent ocean acidification. In fact, recent evidence suggests that (just like plants on land) plankton in the ocean will grow faster and be more abundant with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
AREN’T SPECIES GOING EXTINCT EVERY DAY DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING?Generally speaking, there is no way to know if any species are going extinct. We would have to inventory all of the life that exists on every acre of the Earth to determine this, and as it is, science is discovering new species all the time. And, as discussed above, even if warming is causing some species to become extinct, that warming is likely to be mostly natural anyway. As is the case with climate models, statistics about species extinctions are largely theoretical calculations, based upon dubious assumptions. And in science, it is always the long-held assumptions that end up misleading us.
SHOULDN’T WE BE GETTING OFF FOSSIL FUELS ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS?We eventually will…but right now there are no energy technologies that can offer replacements on the massive scale of what humanity needs for energy on a daily basis. Solar, wind, biofuels, only nibble around the edges of the problem, and they bring their own disadvantages (e.g. environmental impacts of wind and solar, rising food prices from diverting corn production from food to fuel). Both government (using your tax dollars) and private industry (using part of the money you spend on goods and services) have been researching new energy technologies for decades. The free market is the best way to solve this problem because, whoever develops new cost-effective energy technologies stands to make a fortune.
You can not simply legislate new sources of energy into existence. And if you try, economies will be hurt – if not decimated. The world’s poor, those living on the edge of the economy, will be the first to suffer. Since energy is required for everything we do, an increase in energy prices translates directly into more expensive goods and services across the economy.
And given the global nature of trade and business, misguided energy policies at home will simply drive many companies to other countries…where they can pollute even more than they used to here in the U.S..
SOME FINAL REMARKS ABOUT SCIENCEThere is a time-honored tradition in science that has led to a general public distrust of scientists: extrapolation into the future. Even in the 1800’s this failing of science was recognized:
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.”-Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)
As an example, consider the record low Great Lakes water levels experienced in 1926, shown in the graph below:Here is what an ‘expert’ from that time said about the record-low lake levels (try not to laugh too hard):
“Ultimate extinction of the American side of the falls at Niagara is mathematically certain unless water levels in the Great Lakes are raised.”-Daily Mining Journal, May 27, 1926.
Now, that wild statement was probably true in a literal sense. Note that it coveyed a maximum amount of alarm without being factually false. And this is exactly the same kind of prose contained in the Policymakers Summary of the latest (2007) report from U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a document that purposely minimizes any scientific uncertainties about anthropogenic global warming, while at the same time maximizing alarm.
Ultimately, fears of manmade global warming, species extinction, and ocean acidification arise from scientists not fully understanding the checks and balances which exist in nature. Nature is not static, but causes its own, internally-generated changes – both in climate and in biological systems. The common view that nature is in some sort of “delicate” balance is a romantic or religious opinion, and it is a view even held by most scientists. But balances in nature are always readjusting, either to internal forces or external forces. Nature is dynamic, not static. Just because a state of balance might be observed at any point in history does not mean that balance is in any way “delicate”.
Why is it OK for the presence of trees on Earth to change ecosystems and the climate system, but not for the presence of humans? Yes, nature must adjust to the presence of humans, but animals and plants are always adjusting to the presence of other animals and plants, anyway. Conferring these rights to plants and animals, but not to ourselves, makes absolutely no sense.
And since there is abundant scientific evidence that nature prefers more CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to seriously consider the possibility that burning of fossil fuels is, on balance, a good thing for life on Earth.
THE EPA IS ABOUT TO CAUSE A REGULATORY TRAIN WRECK
The US Chamber of Commerce has just issued a concise statement of the consequences of the EPA’s endangerment ruling, and it is a good introduction to the policy implications of the ruling.
I am told by those in the know that, if the EPA’s endangerment finding stands, it can then be used to justify any action to control energy policy and economic activity. Because the Clean Air Act is exempt from cost/benefit analysis, it does not matter if regulations end up causing ten times more harm than good. It is EPA’s job to regulate ‘pollutants’…not to worry about whether there will even be an economy to regulate in the future.
New regulations on CO2 emissions for new cars and trucks based on the endangerment finding will follow quickly. Numerous lawsuits to apply those auto regulations to other sections in the Clean Air Act will spread like wildfire. Many of these lawsuits are already in the system.
Folks, this is nothing like fixing the stratospheric ozone problem by developing other refrigerants to replace Freon. CO2 is produced by nearly all sources of energy. CO2 is a part of nature; Freon was a manmade chemical. While replacements for Freon were already developed by the time Freon was banned, we have no large-scale replacements for fossil fuels we can switch to in the near future.
This issue is at least as important as our recent global financial crisis – probably more so in the long run. It has been said that regulating carbon dioxide emissions will make the United States the cleanest Third World country on Earth. And whoever controls carbon dioxide emissions will control the world.
Finally, you can expect that the threat of the EPA regulating CO2 will cause many politicians and pundits to advocate congressional cap-and-trade legislation as a more palatable alternative. But the choice will be like deciding whether you want to die quickly or slowly. Either one will be lethal.
Instructions for Submitting Comments to the EPA
Me (Sly Fox) again. Congratulations, you actually read the whole thing.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
We mustn’t warm to this myth
9:25am Tuesday 14th April 2009
EVERY totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it was the “Aryan” fantasy of racial purity.
With the USSR, it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularised, semi-pagan Western societies in historic decline, it is global warming.
Sometimes comparisons among these are alarming. For example, Ed Miliband, the climate change minister, has said that opposing wind farms is “socially unacceptable”.
How long before global warming denial becomes an offence, like holocaust denial?
The Government seizes approvingly on outrageous remarks by such as Dr James Hansen, who wrote in a national newspaper: “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
What I find bewildering is that the Greens, who claim to care for the environment, are so strongly in favour of wind farms, which are a kind of pollution of the countryside. What’s more, they don’t work very efficiently. So why ruin the countryside for the sake of obsessed environmentalists’ gesture politics?
Millions of British people enjoy our glorious countryside as a natural environment which provides an antidote to the stress of urban life. It is nothing short of wickedness to foul this delight with useless wind farms.
To their credit, some governments are coming to see the uselessness of the wind turbines.
Germany and Spain are losing their enthusiasm for wind power because, as reported by The Scientific Alliance, “...of the need to run back-up conventional power stations”.
It is meteorologists and other scientists who point out that settled spells of either very hot or very cold weather – the weather that creates the greatest demand for electrical power – occur when there is no wind. So, when electricity demand is at its peak, wind turbines are static and produce nothing.
Global warming is not indisputable. Thousands of highly qualified and experienced scientists question it. But the problem is that global warming is not being treated as a theory, a possibility, but as a truth of nature on a par with the law of gravity. It is the unassailable myth of the new totalitarians.
I wouldn’t want you to think this is just Mullen shooting from the hip. I have been avidly reading scientific papers and reports and, while there are those who believe global warming is taking place, there are thousands of reputable scientists who deny it.
This is entirely as it should be. Rigorous examination of hypotheses is the very basis of science. And this is what is being asked for by, among other intelligent sources, The Scientific Alliance. I quote: “The whole juggernaut of global warming is based on a framework which accepts the International Panel on Climate Change’s view of the enhanced greenhouse effect as indisputable truth. Hence the refusal to concede that any degree of scepticism or a different interpretation of evidence is legitimate.
So it is even more important for critical points to be raised and debate encouraged.
Scientific understanding will benefit from this: and the better the understanding, the better any necessary response can be formulated.”
This is the reasonable approach and a long way from Ed Miliband’s dark words about what is “socially acceptable” and the disgraceful invocation of “death trains”.
■ Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael’s, Cornhill, in the City of London, and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Unthinkable! ridiculous! What a bunch of pantywaist, surrender monkeys!
Read this and tell me the difference. Words have NO MEANING if you can't or won't back them up.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
JOBS conveys what most of us worry about. JOB LOSS = BAD, JOB GAIN = GOOD.
GREEN = ECO FRIENDLY
But what does it really mean? Do you care? If you do I encourage you to read this article from City-Journal.
Here's a teaser quote:
The nineteenth-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat made an invaluable contribution to modern economics by demolishing the notion that a broken window is a good thing inasmuch as it provides work for the glazier. As Bastiat observed, the money that goes to pay the glassmaker would, had the window never been broken at all, have supported some other productive enterprise. Society as a whole winds up poorer, even if the glassmaker profits.
With his promise of 5 million new green jobs, Barack Obama heaves a brick straight through Bastiat’s window. Yesterday’s glazier is tomorrow’s solar-panel installer. The green-jobs promise amounts to killing jobs in efficient industries to create jobs in inefficient ones—hardly a recipe for economic success
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
For some interesting commentary including top/bottom state tax burden see Tax Prof Blog. Also has better graphs
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
One of the defining features of the Obama administration so far is its almost pathological inability to make hard choices--or even to acknowledge that hard choices need to be made. A prime example is the administration's insistence that making energy more expensive will somehow benefit our economy. This proposition is so foolish as to be almost self-refuting: in my view, anyone who doesn't understand that you can't create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient production of energy shouldn't be voting.
In particular, Barack Obama has trumpeted the creation of "green jobs" as somehow offsetting the obvious damage that will be done by his cap-and-trade system and other measures that will make conventional energy sources more expensive. He has pointed specifically to Spain as a country whose experience with "green jobs" we should emulate. So an empirical study of Spain's experience is timely. And, as it happens, one has just been done by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
It is reported on here by the Institute for Energy Research. Some highlights:
* The U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government.
* Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent.
* Since 2000, Spain has spent €571,138 ($753,778) to create each "green job," including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1,319,783) per wind industry job.Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
* Each "green" megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors of the Spanish economy.
* The total over-cost--the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at market prices--between 2000 and 2008 amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros ($10 billion).
* The total subsidy spent and committed to these three renewable sources amounts to €28,671 million ($36 billion).
* Consumer energy costs in Spain would have to be increased 31 percent to repay the debt generated by the green jobs subsidies.
The general rule is, whenever anyone says the word "green," grab your wallet and run for the hills.
So, what's going on here? Is the Obama administration really too dumb to figure out that subsidizing "green jobs" is a losing proposition? I don't think so. I think this is just one more aspect of the massive power grab that is coming out of Obama's Washington. I think the Democrats want to assert their control over all sectors of the economy: they want to decide what companies will succeed and what companies will fail; how much employees of publicly traded companies will be paid; what jobs will exist and what jobs will become obsolete.
When we are all dependent on the federal government, the only way anyone can count on staying in business or having his job preserved will be by donating money to the Democratic Party--the ultimate protection racket, one of which the Mafia can only dream, and one which is already well underway. When it is complete, the Democrats' majority status will be assured for the indefinite future. That is, I think, what the Dems have in mind, and it explains a great deal about Obamanomics.