I have been studying this subject for a number of years and have read hundreds, if not thousands of technical papers on both sides of the schism. I have come to the conclusion that the science underpinning the skeptical point of view is far more solid, testable and therefore falsifiable (as all science should be) whereas the "science" of the alarmists consists of improbable daisy chains of inference of selectively chosen, weak and noisy data "washed" through several further daisy chains of unverified and untested computer models. The outcomes of which are not supported by the physical observations, and in some cases is unsupported by laws of physics.Yet this is presented as "data" - I'm afraid this is futureology or pseudoscience. I'm afraid the only evidence of global warming exists inside of computer models - it cannot be discerned in the actual data without substantial (and erroneous) manipulation to get the facts to fit the theory. I am not anti-environment - but I am anti bad science.

"The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse."

Prof. Garth William Paltridge, Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS). This has become the political and moral hot topic of a generation on which vast sums of our money are being pledged to fight a non-existent problem - this is a very serious issue and getting more so by the day in spite of the mounting contrary evidence. This letter is not intended as a scientific treatise - it is primarily my way of keeping up with the debate on Global Warming and  CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and serves as a record of my own investigation into the various topics. It is my way of getting my head around and keeping track of the problem.It has developed a life of its own and continues to grow - If I am not careful it might become a book.  Please consider the two lengthy lists of eminent scientists opposed to global warming hysteria (included below to demonstrate that I'm not a "lone nutter")  - they were signatories to letters to the UN etc. If you are scientifically inclined, visit this site / essay http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html Here a vast amount of peer reviewed & published data is presented to clearly demonstrate that the current alarm over CO2 is unfounded. As you read into this you will probably start thinking "that can't be - surely so many people and scientists cannot be that wrong" - that was exactly my reaction when I first started to explore the contrary position and as shocking as that might seem I assure you that it is so - please check everything. - I did !

Besides there are thousands of eminent scientists on record as being skeptical or dismissive of these claims so the "how could they be so wrong" question cuts both ways. There are a great many differing opinions on this subject but the warmists have caught the imagination of the media and persuaded them that the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible and that this is the "consensus" - again, I assure you this is not the case - the alarmists just get a lot more air time and press coverage. Fear and alarm sell copy ! Couple this with the near universal scientific illiteracy of the average journalist and they give credence to the most idiotic outpourings of the warmists.Almost everyone with whom  I raise this issue believe in "Global Warming" simply because of the media clamour - in most cases they have not actually checked out a single "fact" or made any attempt to understand what it all means.If you disagree with anything below, please send me the proof that supports your position. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan Contact me at keni@worldonline.co.za MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME A HOAX Allow me to whet your appetite with the following :- Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, broke ranks with the IPCC panel when he made this statement to the UN :- "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. "All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," For a brief easy to read brilliantly lucid critique read http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases By Professor William Happer the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. These are just two statements from amongst thousands of eminent skeptical scientists, yet for whatever reasons such contrary positions are almost never heard in the media. If those grabbed your attention - read on, it's just the tip of the iceberg.........

 I used to accept Anthropogenic {man induced} Global Warming (AGW) as factual. However as a result of examining the evidence myself I have ceased giving credence to the CO2 Global warming hypothesis when I considered the following fundamental facts :-

(see details later)

1)  Ice Core Data clearly shows that historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase (by about 800 years) - it is a result not a cause of climate change - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) reports. 2)   According to the US Department of Energy, Water vapour accounts for 95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorption "greenhouse effect" of which only 0.001% can be ascribed to the activities of man. (Is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?)3)  The spectra absorbed by CO2 are almost (99.999%) fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference. 4)  CO2 absorption spectra are only about 8% of the total IR energy spectrum and less than 3% of total solar insolation of which less than 1% is available to CO2 because of redundant overlap with the absorption properties of water vapour. 5) The absorption of IR is almost unaffected by temperature - emission of IR is seriously affected by temperature - something like to the 4th power of temperature (K°) - so even small temperature increases (in the upper Troposphere) have very significant effects on the amount of heat radiated into space to balance the Earth's energy budget.6) Since any IR "absorber" (such as  CO2) is also an "emitter" and (from 5 above) it is a better "emitter" than an "absorber" it also has a cooling effect - this is simply ignored in the models.7) The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.8) That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2. 9)  CO2 correlates very precisely to sea temperature - CO2 is a result of warming oceans - it is not the cause.10) The Oceans contain over fifty times (50 x) the CO2 in the atmosphere - the only thing keeping it there is temperature - if the seas warm they liberate vast amounts of CO2

11) The Oceans absorb 95% of the solar radiation that reaches it - Ocean warming is almost entirely a function of solar output.12)  Sea levels are not rising significantly when measured by the sidereal (astronomical time) rotation of the Earth.13) Studies written by numerous tenured & Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a. (Excluding volcanic activity.) - human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.14)  Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modeling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modeling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.See Clash of theories at this site http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=9915)  The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper equatorial troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching. 16) The AGW models also predict Stratospheric cooling - that hasn't been found either.17)  The AGW models require a process known as "radiative forcing" which in turn requires a reduction in outgoing radiation as the Earth's temperature increases - this is contrary to the laws of physics & thermodynamics and the ERBE (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite sent up to look for it did not find it.

It did find that normal physics prevail and the radiation increases with temperature. So the convoluted logic of "radiative forcing" is proven false.18)  The "energy imbalance" AGW models suggest has also not been found - again despite ongoing and very thorough searching (ARGO Sea Buoys etc.).19)  In 2005 the UN predicted there would be 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 - this estimate is now off by approximately 50 million - there aren't any.20)  The UN also predicted that seas would rise several meters - it hasn't happened - the most recent studies show that the modest 20th century sea level increases are in fact tapering off if not actually reversing.21) The IPCC uses a 3X forcing factor (this is not a prediction per se - but a dialed in "guess" fundamental to the outcome of their modeling) this has been demonstrated (Miskolcki et al) to be negative 0.5X.22) It follows from 15-21 that if none of the predictions of AGW theory can be found by empirical observation - the most logical conclusion is that the theory is ill founded.23)  Temperatures have fluctuated higher and faster in the past than current observed changes at least a dozen times in the last 10000 years.  24) The last 10000 years of ice core data from the Greenland ice cap show that current temperatures are low and only three other lows appear in the data set - alongside dozens of highs most of which exhibit upslopes steeper than the present trend. (see graphic later)25)  There is no evidence in the historical records to support the assumptions that the current climate is "normal" or that the rates of change are "abnormal".26) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infra-red. There is however no proof - NONE WHATSOEVER - that this was the cause of the 1970-1998 warming. This is merely an unproven assertion of the AGW hypothesis. (see comments by Dr. David Evans later)27) The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red  (IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses , which were debunked over 100 years ago. (see Prof. Wood's article later) This debunking has recently been re-verified. 28) The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves. Our atmosphere behaves in ways completely different to and much more complex than a Greenhouse - simplifying atmospheric dynamics to that of a Greenhouse is simplistic in the extreme and mathematically false.29)  CO2 has throughout paleological history been higher than present (it has only been this low for the last 650 000 years and briefly again during the Carboniferous period). (see graphic later)30)  CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. Photosynthesis stops at 100ppm and the current 390ppm could be considered dangerously low for life that evolved in 1000-1200ppm environments.31)  The "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is based on terrestrial weather stations which have been corrupted by the Urban Heat island Effect (UHI - see later) and distinctly skewed towards the "hot" side by an unintentional bias introduced by station elimination, calibration and relocation.The terrestrial data does not correspond to the satellite data which shows only a slight warming trend + 0.1°C by 2000 which has since been lost to a recent cooling trend.32)  CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 4% of the total CO2 liberated to atmosphere (excluding volcanoes) - even the 5% propounded by alarmists is insufficient for us to conclude that we can "Control" climate through the reduction of this one tiny variable. (even if CO2 is responsible for the warming - which it isn't.) 

33)  From the above - If CO2 is only 5% of the emissions and can absorb only 3% of solar insolation - then even ignoring the fact that this 3% insolation is already 99.999% absorbed and two thirds of it are taken up by water vapour- these two combine to suggest that mans emissions count for a maximum variable of only 0.15% (at best - in total -  more realistically 0.0000005% allowing for current IR saturation and spectral overlap).To suggest that we can use this insignificant amount to "control" the climate simply beggars belief. 34) The current levels of 391ppm CO2 in the atmosphere represents ±745 GT (GigaTonnes = billions of Tonnes) -  Earth's known recoverable fossil fuel reserves are  ±4000GT - if we were somehow to burn it all up and release it to the atmosphere tomorrow - it would cause the 391ppm to rise to ±2100ppm much lower than any "toxic" level and very desirable for plant life.That's an impossible worst case scenario - if we were to burn it over 100 years with Mother Nature sinking 80% of it as appears to be the case, it would rise to 420ppm - even this is unlikely and even if it did come about it might produce 0.2°C warming and its overall effect would probably be more beneficial than harmful.35)  The amount of Volcanic CO2 is generally accepted to be way in excess of IPCC estimates and a recent sub-sea survey of undersea volcanic CO2 output raises the error bar on the estimate (one standard deviation) to more than 10 times mans CO2 output - this is just one of the spectacularly variable parameters used in climate change models (CCM's).36)  Many of the most significant parameters used in climate change models (CCM's) are unknown and in some cases unknowable - there is not even a best guess - so such parameters merely represent the prejudice or paradigms of the model builder. 37) If one parameter is a guess - then the entire output from that model is dependant on that guess - therefore any prediction from any such model is in fact a guess. (refer to the "Drake Equation" in Michael Chrichton's speech to Caltech - later)38)  CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere pro-rata to our emissions. In fact some 80% of our emissions "disappear". Something is acting as a sink - evidence suggests that nature responds to more CO2 by using more CO2 - Mother Nature loves CO2 .  39) CO2  is the very foundation of the food chain - without it we will all die. 40)  The AGW hypothesis is circular reasoning. The hypothesis predicts that the warming is caused by mans emissions and then cite the warming as "proof". You cannot use the premise of a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.By such circular logic any hypothesis is true.41)  The IPCC's models ignore variation in solar output (insolation), water vapour & cloud cover by treating them as constants which they are not. Statistically this means they have no variant influence on the model outcome and could effectively be omitted. Thus the IPCC's models ignore 99.9% of the things that actually drive the climate.42)  Constructing a mathematical climate change model which only has man's inputs as variables will unsurprisingly find that man is the prime mover of climate change. Indeed no other outcome is possible.43)  Constructing a mathematical climate change model which starts from the assumption that CO2 causes warming will unsurprisingly find that additional  CO2 will cause warming - again no other outcome is possible.44) Models that do not assume CO2 induced warming (Prof Nicola Scaffetta et al) can produce better climate forecasts than the CO2 forced models - this alone suggests that CO2 forced warming is insignificant.

45) All of the IPCC models assume CO2 causes warming (the IPCC does not accept models that do otherwise) - it is therefore unsurprising that such models predict increased temperature for increases in CO2 this is a forgone conclusion of such a process - yet frequently presented as "data" or "evidence".46)  No credible evidence has yet been found that increased CO2 is harmful to life - quite the opposite - most realistic studies find more benefits than costs.Alarmist fears of CO2 ocean acidification and the like are simply bad science.47)  There is no "consensus" amongst scientists - this is propaganda intended to stifle debate. Thousands of respected scientists do not agree with AGW.48)  Currently temperatures have been falling (since 1998) whatever evidence there was of warming has been more or less been reversed by what appears to be natural cyclicality in the system. The upslope in temperatures between 1970 - 2000 can be seen as part of the "big picture" but in selectively looking only at this period one can easily be alarmed.49) Dr Matt Ridley has referred to the IPCC process as "replacing evidence based policy making with policy based evidence making". If you examine the IPCC process critically you will find this to be true. The IPCC is a political body masquerading as a scientific body.50) In science, a theory or hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested. The theory of AGW has failed this process on each and every prediction made. However (as in the case of the increasing ice mass in the Antarctic) these "scientists" merely revise their theory and claim it was either what they expected or rationalise the failure by adjusting their model to "explain" the apparent anomaly. This post hoc rationalisation (termed post-modern science)  is science at its worst.51) All of the dire predictions are made on the basis of computer models which not only remain unproven but their output is not supported by either the physical observations or the physics that should underpin the entire theory. In science this is usually the downfall of any hypothesis but for some strange reason the AGW hypothesis has acquired a life of its own and appears to be allowed to break the laws of physics with little or no comment from the alarmist camp. These points and others are discussed in greater detail below with web links to articles and published technical papers underpinning this skeptical take on warmist propaganda. For 100 reasons visit this Daily Express article :- http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural For a shorter "primer" go to: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf Which is a pithy critique avoiding the pitfalls of trying to deal with the "complexity" of the issues and cuts straight to the heart of the argument - is man responsible ? can we do anything about it ?? The answer to both questions is emphatically NO! Joanne Nova describes herself as "a veteran believer in the greenhouse gas crisis 1990-2007". She is of course now completely skeptical. Below another confirmed believer's slow journey to the awful realisation of the magnitude of the hoax - it is well written and well referenced. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

 Watch the full length feature film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Channel 4's Martin Durkin - also available as a DVD. (its a little lightweight scientifically speaking but is nonetheless simple and informative as well as entertaining.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ The Real Inconvenient Truths

  You can of course argue the above graphics have been "cherry picked" - true - but no more so than the cherry picking of the alarmists which is unfortunately universal. 

Up until about 1999 the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis certainly appeared to be true.Since that time, the accumulated evidence tends to strongly suggest the warming / cooling cycles are natural occurrences beyond our control. It has further become apparent that man's influence via his emissions of "Greenhouse Gasses" is negligible to none existent. It is also now solidly apparent that the warming trend propounded by the alarmists (the infamous "hockey stick" curve)  was nowhere near as steep as projected, has in fact ended and has reversed into a current cooling trend. Warming stopped 15 years ago and much of the prior warming has been reversed. The most recent temperature series do not show any trend that is abnormal, unprecedented or outside of millennial variability. No action is required! Unfortunately so many people have become so ideologically wedded to the idea that man is responsible, they find it difficult, embarrassing or simply impossible to reverse their positions. They therefore have had to resort to supporting their failing hypothesis with increasingly dubious science. By this process Global Warming has progressively degenerated from genuine scientific concern into a hoax !  The word "hoax" in this regard is sometimes considered a bit harsh but unfortunately it is the most appropriate word.....(Webster's Dictionary) Hoax (noun) Something accepted or established by fraudulent means or fabrication. Hoax (transitive verb) To trick into believing or accepting something false and often preposterous. If you read on, I think you will find the term appropriate.....  Most "believers" cannot even bring themselves to consider the opposing viewpoint. If you decide to read no further because I am obviously wrong (mad, misguided, a pawn of petrochemical giants - whatever) - you have simply confirmed your own scientific bigotry and I cannot help you. I used to believe AGW was a real threat until I read Michael Crighton's book "State of Fear" - I was somewhat shocked to realise that he was not convinced and his book was very well referenced. (Michael Crichton was a Harvard MD by age 22 and a visiting lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge age 27- a very bright guy.)His view was so out of kilter with what I presumed was the accepted reality that I started to check out his references which to my surprise were not only valid but led to thousands of other skeptical papers & reviews. Michael Crighton had intended to write a techno-thriller about global warming but upon doing the research he found the claims to be without substance and instead wrote a contrary story - providing references for all the factual content. So I started to do my own review of the research and data. At first I was incredulous, but the further down the rabbit hole I went the curiouser and curiouser I got.Eventually the magnitude of the hoax and bad science made me very angry and I started writing this which has, like Topsy, "grewed" out of all proportion. 

My conclusion thus far - there is no - I repeat NO - proven link between CO2 and Global Warming. NONE WHATSOEVER. What is touted as "evidence" is in fact merely very weak and noisy data correlation, which by and large runs contra to the physics (more on this later). When I came upon the physics of points 1 - 3 above (800 year time lag, water vapour accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas effects and the CO2 is 99.999% IR saturated) - as an engineer that was it for me - case closed - CO2 cannot be responsible.It also turns out I was wrong ! - A mechanism does exist outside of these parameters in that CO2 can inhibit IR emission above the Troposphere and thus cause warming - at least in the models - but there is no physical evidence of this occurring - NONE !  The association between CO2 and temperature is circumstantial and the "correlation" statistically invalid. (See later.) CO2 is related to temperature - temperature is NOT related to CO2 ! (in much the same way as ice cream sales are related to temperature, temperature is not related to ice cream sales - simple correlation does not cut both ways.) - read on... Don't take my word for it - and by the same token don't believe the alarmists either - do your own research and come to your own conclusions.To do this you must explore both sides of the argument to see which is the most compelling case - if you only read pro-AGW papers and articles you will undoubtedly be convinced it is true. The pro-AGW case is very compelling - but if you follow the contradictory evidence and arguments you will find the pro-AGW case is in fact very weak, unsupported by real climate data and in some cases unsupported by the laws of Physics. Please explore both sides - I cannot stress this point strongly enough. I have noted that pro-AGW articles seldom explore the contrary position or data whereas most anti-AGW articles start with the pro side and then go on to show why it is either false or greatly exaggerated.This bias and failure to explore contrary data or opinions within the pro-AGW camp certainly set off alarm bells in my mind that it is simply unscientific. Please note that here I am specifically urging you to explore both sides of the argument - I further challenge you to find a pro-AGW article which even mentions the skeptical point of view let alone suggest that your explore that position. Why would that be if their case is allegedly so strong ?? This is an extremely serious issue and one that you need to make informed decisions about as governments worldwide are about to drastically alter our lifestyles, impose crippling taxes, wreck economies etc. all "for our own good". This based on a near religious cult of global warming which has been conjured up out of the most flimsy data. (Mountains of flimsy data is still flimsy data.) 

There are plenty of eminent scientists (tens of thousands in fact) who are highly skeptical about the whole global warming issue

The image is a bit cheeky - but why not ? - based on the 31000+ dissenting scientists that signed the Oregon Petition vs the 2500+ scientists behind the 52 man IPCC version (and there are plenty of dissenters in even that number). Just two examples: Professor Emeritus of Civil & Biosystems Engineering Prof. Will Alexander of the University of Pretoria...  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9922 

"Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. There is no way whatsoever that the costly mitigation measures will have a meaningful effect on the world’s climate." 

& Japanese UN  IPCC  Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history of science...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”   The average person is unaware of the thousands of dissident scientists or their opposition to GW hysteria - this is principally because of the world mainstream media ignoring any contrary argument. "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say." - Ross Gelbspan - Former Editor of The Boston Globe 

Pardon...... run that by me again ??? The press have chosen sides ! They erroneously believe they are supporting a "worthy" cause.  http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm Temperatures are currently dropping - has the media mentioned it ? - NO !Polar ice cover increased during 2008 to a 20 year high - against all the alarmist predictions that it would shrink to an all time low - has the media mentioned it ? - NO !1998 was reported as the hottest year on record - this has since been proven false, 1922 & 1934 were hotter - has the media mentioned it - NO !Ice core data shows it has been hotter than present at least a dozen times in the last 10000 years - it has only been this cold 3 times - has the media mentioned this - NO !The ice core data clearly shows CO2 to be a result of warming not a cause of warming - has the media mentioned this inconvenient truth - NO ! Over 600 scientists submitted testimony to the US Senate debunking climate change fears - has the media mentioned it ? - NO !Over 31000 scientists skeptical of Global Warming have signed the Oregon Petition (see later)  - has the media mentioned it ? - NO !In Aug 2012 Northern sea ice was at a near record low (after a major storm broke up the ice) but Southern sea ice was at a near record high - let me guess which one you read about in the press ??http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17914/APs-Seth-Borenstein-at-it-again-Claims-global-warming-means-more-Antarctic-ice--Meet-the-new-consensus-the-opposite-of-the-old-consensushttp://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/Also that the Artic ice extent had recovered to near record 2008 levels by February 2013 ? Have you ever heard any of this ??? Why not ??? I could go on and on..... Why has Global Warming taken such a serious a grip on popular imagination ? I would suggest that it is simply a manifestation of our desire to be in control of what might appear to be an extremely alarming situation. People have been startled by the revelation of global warming and have been alarmed by the scenarios of dire consequences dreamed up by many scare merchants. Now look up "anal" behaviour in any psychology handbook - we are all to some extent or the other "control freaks". Global warming might be truly alarming if we can do nothing to control it. So we embrace the idea that we are responsible via our CO2 emissions - this gives us the warm fuzzy feeling that Climate Change is controllable - all we need is the political willpower to do something about it !.Embracing this idea also empowers us with the ability to "save the planet" - a difficult notion to give up on. Think about it - We cannot control the weather today let alone tomorrow and our ability to predict the weather diminishes in accuracy by the day out to about one week maximum. Yet these people believe they can not only predict the climate in 100 years

time, but that they can control it ! Yes I know climate and weather are not the same thing - but even so a 100 year projection based on fundamentally flawed models is likely to be uselessly inaccurate.Climate warmists are quick to point out that unfavourable weather (unfavourable to the AGW hypothesis - such as the current cooler temperatures) is not "climate" but "weather" - but notice how they will rapidly point to any "weather" event as supporting their hypothesis.Floods = global warming ! Droughts = global warming ! Heat Waves = global warming ! Snowstorms = global warming ! If you think about it for just a moment you will recognise the "doublespeak". This after many years of steadfastly pointing out to skeptics that "weather is not climate" - climate alarmists now find that the only thing they can do is to claim that weather and climate are synonymous when it suits them. Global warming is, to quote Michael Crichton "a faith without proof - global warming is undoubtedly a religion." Caveat: "but for good people to do evil things - that requires religion" Steven Weinberg Most people are raised to feel guilt (nothing wrong in that - without guilt we are sociopaths) - and we are all guilty to some extent or the other of harming the planet - so we feel a great need for expiation.For normal sins you can go to confession, say seven hail Mary's and put $10 in the offering plate - you're forgiven and can carry on doing exactly the same things until next Sunday.Paying Carbon taxes satisfies this need for expiation - and you can then carry on doing what you always do.This is simply environmental self-flagellation -  and let's be serious - anyone who enjoys inflicting harm on himself needs help. 

A British Court has ruled that an employer must respect his employees "Green Beliefs" under laws that respect religious beliefs.Its official - it is a religion. Global warming is a religion, a faith without proof, propounded by persons who claim "special knowledge". Like all religions it comes with a list of vices and virtues, indulgences and punishments, a list of do's and don'ts for its followers. As such it has been remarkably successful in scaring people into wanting to pay expiative taxes to absolve them of their ecological sins and unsurprisingly this bogus science has been embraced wholesale by politicians for purely exploitative reasons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html Speaking out against the Global Warming Hypothesis has become the new blasphemy. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5490/ 

 Many scientists are afraid to speak up because of the calumny that will surely be heaped upon them. These attacks are invariably ad-hominem mud slinging with no regard for the science - the reason is obvious - if you can't attack the data - attack the man. "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." - Prof. Richard Lindzen - Prof Climatology Massechusetts Institute of Technology One has to wonder why the alarmists get so hysterical about it - again the obvious - they are passionate about it (they believe after all that they are saving the planet) but

intuitively know their case is weak. Read on - if you believe in free speech and scientific debate you should be alarmed. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act !" - George Orwell What next ? - will anti global warming be considered hate speech ??? Believe it or not a number of alarmists have called for "Climate Change Denialism" to be criminalised and even have it declared a mental condition. Don't get me wrong the Earth's climate is definitely warming up (or at least it was until 1999 - it has since been cooling) and will probably continue to warm up in future (in line with solar variance) - my problem is the simplistic blaming of CO2 and other man made emissions for it. To single out a single trace gas and blame all of climate change on it is a huge stretch of the imagination and an impossible stretch of the science.   

CO2 Is The Stuff Of Life. We are making a serious mistake by demonising Carbon Dioxide  as a pollutant - its not - it is the stuff of life ! We are raising a generation of people who erroneously believe we would all be better off if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The truth is CO2 is part of the life cycle, the very stuff that supports all life, without it photosynthesis will stop and we will all die ! No if's or but's - WE WILL ALL DIE ! - This is a SIMPLE AND UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT! Like it or not, we need CO2 in the atmosphere. The question we should be asking is how much ? (Note:  CO2 only becomes "toxic" at  ±12000ppm. 5000ppm is considered safe for long term missions and 8000ppm for short term missions by NASA & the US Navy.)  Paleobotanists believe that the bulk of the Earth's plant life evolved at much higher levels of CO2, this is borne out by commercial greenhouses artificially raising CO2 to 1000-1200ppm to optimise plant growth.Furthermore the pre industrial level of 250ppm (if correct) could be considered dangerously low (photosynthesis stops at about 100ppm and is seriously compromised below 200ppm) - so why the alarm over its current level of 391ppm ? (see later detail) Some of the improvements in crop yields (as much as 30% since 1930 attributable to increased CO2 ) are due to the aerial fertilisation effect of the increased CO2 and have helped to feed the world and avoid "the world is going to starve" scenarios of the 70's. http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter7.htmlI refer to this to show we have been hopelessly wrong before, there are many examples of hysterical fear mongering - remember Y2K ? Remember the coming ice age predicted in the 70's - in some cases by the same persons now predicting global warming catastrophe. There is no evidence that the increased levels of CO2 or any of the so called "Greenhouse Gasses" are a threat to the climate or the future well-being of mankind - none at all.

There is plenty of solid evidence that much higher values of CO2 are normal and indeed beneficial to all species - land and marine. The hysteria comes from seriously flawed computer models which have been engineered to suit the hypothesis. The generated output is considered by some as hard fact - it isn't. It is merely technological conjecture tricked out as science. This coupled with speculation asserted as fact often appears compelling. Careful realistic study invariably shows it to be unfounded. The IPCC ignored physical CO2 values determined by pre-industrial and early industrial scientists in favour of proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, seeds etc.) which were lower and therefore suited their hypothesis better. (This is simply "Cherry Picking" supportive data.) They also switched between proxies (where it suited them) to pick the proxy most supportive of their hypothesis. This is simply bad science ! http://www.climate-skeptic.com/tag/mann  There was no reason to believe the physical data was wrong - in fact the drive to accurately determine CO2 by chemical means was driven by the need to measure this for things like boiler efficiency etc (sound economic reasons).The more likely pre-industrial level was 280-330ppm. (See comments by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski to the US Senate later.)  The alarmists need the lowest possible starting value to make the increase look as bad as possible. Alarmists frequently tell us that CO2 is higher now than in recorded history - that may be true for "recorded" history but is blatantly false for the history of the Earth where CO2 levels have been much higher (as much as 10 times higher - not just a percentage) - in fact only the current Quaternary period and briefly at the end of the Carboniferous period has CO2 been this low. (see graphic later) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html Probably true - CO2 hasn't been this high for 650 000 years - still just a "tick of the clock" paleologically speaking. And it has been much higher in the past without man's help. The paleological record also shows CO2 highs to be associated with massive surges in plant growth as well as all other life forms up the food chain - life loves CO2. {Incidentally if you are wondering how you determine CO2 levels a million years ago - it is by measuring the size and distribution of stomata (breathing pores) on the underside of plant leaves / fossils used in conjunction with other geologic/radio-isotopic methods - these methods are considered accurate.}  At 50ppm CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 90% of the available IR spectrum (available to CO2) at 350ppm it therefore absorbs 99.999%.  In addition two of the three spectra zones of infra-red absorption by CO2 overlap with those of water vapour therefore the "effectiveness" of CO2 absorption is greatly diminished. If we "doubled" the CO2 to 700ppm ("Think what doubling might do ?" - Al Gore - alarmism again). we would increase the absorption from 99.999% to 99.99999999% or

a "whopping" increase in absorbed energy of 0.01% The same is true for all of the so called "Greenhouse Gasses". To put that in perspective, relative to the average households electricity consumption it wouldn't be enough to light a tiny LED - in fact you would need to gather this "increase" from 300 houses before you would have enough energy to light a single LED. It is a vanishingly small amount. This IR absorption by the atmosphere is so effective that practically zero IR (within the CO2 spectrum) is radiated into space from the Earth's surface directly. Convection carries warm air to the upper Troposphere where heat is eventually radiated as IR into space - however if CO2 was the culprit there should be a hot spot in the upper Equatorial Troposphere - it has not been found despite extensive searching. Doubling the CO2 content will have almost no effect on the thermal transfer mechanism. Some spectra unaffected by atmospheric gasses do make it out and are used by satellites for temperature measurements - but these spectra have by their very nature nothing to do with AGW. Consider for a moment what actually happens to a photon of longwave radiation emitted from the surface of the earth (within the greenhouse gas spectra). It stands a 90% chance of capture within the first 30m by the various "greenhouse gasses" - principally water vapour. (for 60m 99%, 90m 99.9% etc) It will of course eventually be re-radiated from the now less stable gas atom that absorbed it - 50% going generally up and 50% going generally down. You don't need to think this through too hard to realise that very little is going to make it out into space by this mechanism. (The sum of halves doubles this so that effectively 99.9% of IR from the surface is absorbed in the first 180m. - go to the top of a tall building - its much colder than at ground level - that's why.)This certainly has the potential to create a much hotter atmosphere near the surface (a'la a greenhouse - which it does, keeping us warmer to the tune of 10-11°C but that's about it due to saturation).However, this has nothing to do with how heat is ultimately transported out to space. This is almost entirely accomplished by the colossally far greater influence of convection carrying warm atmospheric gasses and water vapour up into the upper troposphere where it can eventually radiate heat into space as IR radiation from the upper Troposphere / Stratosphere. The amount of energy carried by the 390ppm CO2 is very very tiny about 1/14 millionth of the total energy (0.000007%). The "greenhouse gasses" will in any case assist this radiative mechanism (very slightly) as any "absorber" is also an "emitter".The notion that the CO2 will "Trap" the longwave radiation is somewhat absurd when viewed from a quantum-probability perspective.There is no scientific evidence proving the ability of CO2 to "trap" heat. Note: Water vapour IS capable of "storing" and transporting energy due to a change in phase - CO2 does not change phase in our atmosphere. Photons (and other temperature excited atoms) striking paired H2O atoms break the bonds thereby adding energy by a change in phase (from water to vapour) - no change in temperature occurs therefore the molecule is not unbalanced with respect to its neighbours.Water vapour is capable of shedding 540 Cal.per gram in changing phase from vapour to water and a further 80 Cal.per gram in changing phase from water to ice.This in addition to its 1.0 Cal.per gram per C° as water and 0.5 Cal.per gram as ice.

CO2's (and most of the atmospheric gasses) ±0.2 Cal. per gram per C° is puny by comparison. Example: One gram of water vapour in transiting from 15 C° to -50 C° (surface to upper Troposphere) will transport 50 times as much heat as one gram of CO2.At 20 C° water vapour can be as much as 2% (on average - can be as high as 4% - depends on the prevailing atmospherics.) of the atmosphere or 20000ppm vs. CO2's 380ppm - so water vapour is capable of transporting about 3000 times more heat (from surface to Troposphere) than CO2  AND its role becomes increasingly significant as temperatures rise - now try and convince me that the CO2 component is significant ? At the tropics where over 60% of solar insolation is absorbed its effect is 6000 times greater. Consider the following "scorecard" for equatorial regions Water vapour = 6000      CO2  = 1  "Doubling" CO2 to 2 is trivial - no wonder the upper equatorial hotspot has not been found even with the IPCC's magical 3X forcing factor, 6 vs 6000 remains insignificant. Incidentally if you consider an agricultural greenhouse with an internal temperature of 30C° vs. an outside temperature of 10C° both at 100% relative humidity, then the difference in stored energy (between inside and outside) is 98% vested in the water vapour content of the greenhouse. Even if the CO2 has risen to 1000ppm in the greenhouse it will still only account for 0.0004% of the increase in stored energy. Go ahead do the math's - I dare you ! Stop talking about the "Greenhouse Effect" it has almost nothing to do with CO2 it is almost entirely dependant on water vapour and suppression of convection. Similarly our atmosphere is almost entirely governed by sunlight, water vapour & convection. The laws of Physics pretty much preclude CO2 from being a significant factor.  (Note: From prior - the first 50ppm is significant - it absorbs 90% of the spectra available to CO2 the next 50ppm 9% the next 50ppm 0.9% etc. etc. laws of severely diminishing returns.)  CO2 does not suppress convection in our atmosphere and the concept of a CO2 "glass ceiling" in our atmosphere is wishfully elegant but non-existent. SOME "QUICK & DIRTY" CALCULATIONS "Doubling" CO2 will increase its absorption by 0.01% and  the 391-ppm CO2 harbours only 14 millionths of the energy in the atmosphere then the increase in stored energy (caused by doubling CO2) would be 0.000000014%. (This is about 1/30000th of the current increase in the suns annual average energy upslope it is absolutely insignificant. This would amount to less than 20 minutes of average solar increase (±0.4% per 100 years at present see later). So we shut down all industry and in 20 minutes we have lost all the "Green" gain we have made, we have clearly lost the plot somewhere along the way. )  Admittedly this is a somewhat simplistic calculation - but the point is anything CO2 can do pales into insignificance against the power of the Sun. By the same token any "adjustment" we might make to the Earth's climate by controlling CO2

can be blown away by just a few minutes of solar variance.

In short our CO2 footprint and our ability to "control" the climate by CO2 is absolutely insignificant.  Let's calculate the effects of CO2 another way - CO2 absorbs  8% of the IR spectrum which is 1100/3200 of the total Solar Insolation = 2.75% of the total but this is 99.999% already "absorbed" so a further doubling of CO2 will collect a further 0.0000275% of the energy - lets double this to allow for incoming and outgoing radiation = 0.00005.5% of the suns insolation or 72 minutes of solar increase. (Doubling is excessive as the incoming IR is almost totally absorbed anyway - so this overstates the case.) This also ignores the overlap of 2 of the 3 spectral bands with water vapour.Even if we were to take the full 15% radiation from the surface and ignored all other interactions, doubling of atmospheric CO2 would still only be equivalent to 4 days of average solar increase. The current levels of 391ppm CO2 in the atmosphere represents ±745 GT (GigaTonnes = billions of Tonnes) - now consider the recoverable fossil fuel reserves of ±4000GT - if we were somehow to burn it all up and release it to the atmosphere tomorrow - it would cause the 391ppm to rise to ±2100ppm much lower than any "toxic" level and very desirable for plant life.That's an impossible worst case scenario - if we were to burn it over 100 years with Mother Nature sinking 80% of it as appears to be the case, it would rise to 420ppm - even this is unlikely and even if it did come about it might produce 0.2°C warming and its overall effect would probably be more beneficial than harmful.I'm sorry but no matter how you fudge these numbers, CO2 is never going to play anything more than an insignificant role in Global Warming. "Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the global warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers."…Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environment Sciences, University of Virginia. (The late) Emeritus Prof. Reid A Bryson (PhD Meteorology) believes in climate change. 40 years ago he presented a paper predicting man induced global warming ("I was laughed off the stage at the time").Today still believes the climate is changing but man has nothing to do with it - "You can go outside and spit - it will be about the same influence as doubling CO2." The physics simply shows CO2 to be an insignificant factor in respect of its IR absorption and thermal transfer capabilities.  Just examine the basics - it simply does not add up ! If the big picture does not add up, it is pretty pointless trying to then prove your case with the minutiae. What about the other effects of CO2 ? What about the other effects of CO2 ? (I hear you ask) such as the blocking of IR emissions and the multiplier effect of radiative forcing - O.K. so you know the jargon but have you ever investigated the 'science" that underpins it ? its fanciful, convoluted, contrary to the laws of physics and thermodynamics and there is simply no physical proof whatsoever that it might be true - NONE ! (read on). There is no problem with proposing fanciful or convoluted theories in physics - but when these theories cannot be substantiated by observation - its time to look for a new theory ! 

Even if the IPCC scenario was correct it would result in a tiny change in temperature gradient only  (environmental lapse rate) - it cannot "create" energy - a magical multiplier effect propounded by the IPCC which violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy is neither created nor destroyed). (Note: There are genuine CO2 forcing mechanisms, both positive and negative - see comments later - but any use of such forcings in a model that "creates" energy are false.) Current IPCC models use a positive CO2 forcing factor of x 3 (amplification) whereas current figures indicate a negative forcing factor for  CO2 of x -0.5 (damping) - this is a huge difference for one of the principal parameters in the climate models used by the IPCC (but is a logical outcome of dialing in the number you need to get the result you were looking for - which is precisely what the IPCC did !). http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/climate-coup-science.pdfhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climate_coup.pdf  The temperature gradient (environmental lapse rate) refers to the fact that air is generally warmer close to the surface because of the influence of pressure and the extreme difficulty IR has in escaping upwards (without convection of the latent heat of water vapour).Temperature drops about 6.5°C per 1000m (in non-inversion conditions) up to the upper troposphere / lower stratosphere (varies in height from 6-17km from poles to Equator) - the troposphere contains 90% of the atmospheric gasses and 99% of the water vapour - beyond this point the atmosphere is almost transparent to IR radiation. If we doubled CO2 in the atmosphere this lapse rate might change to 6.6°C - nothing you need be concerned about. (As yet there is no evidence of a change in the lapse rate).This 6.5°C per 1000m temperature change is mostly (5.6°C per 1000m) due to Boyle's law changes of temperature with pressure and the inability of IR from the heated surface to penetrate upwards affecting the first 200m or so.99.9% of the "Greenhouse" effect occurs in the first 200m above the surface - this does indeed keep us warm by an additional 10-11°C but this would remain almost completely unaffected by an increase in CO2 Most people don't realise that this is not what the argument is about. The AGW theory suggests that the increasing CO2 in the upper Troposphere / Stratosphere will inhibit IR emissions at high level - thus unbalancing the Earth's radiative balance.Herein lies the rub - if CO2 was trapping the IR (or more correctly, inhibiting the emission of IR) above the troposphere it would indeed cause global warming and it would first become noticeable as a hot spot in the upper equatorial Troposphere  - as mentioned earlier - plus this would of necessity result in a reduction in outgoing radiation (which violates the second law of thermodynamics) and a concomitant reduction in Stratospheric temperature - none of these predicted phenomena have been found in empirical observations - despite intensive and ongoing searching (The predictions of the AGW hypothesis simply fail completely and utterly on these three observations). What the alarmists are doing is grabbing your attention with what is a well known (if somewhat incorrectly well known) effect which occurs in the first 200m from the surface and then continue to talk as if it has ongoing and universal applicability through the atmosphere - it simply doesn't work like that in reality. 

CO2 is denser than air and tends to sink and remains in higher concentrations near the ground plus it is soluble and brought down by rain. As a result of this CO2 tends to occur in slightly lower concentrations with altitude.CO2 is constantly being "cycled" throughout the atmosphere - it does not stay there. It has a residence time of 3-5 years - this time depends on the researcher doing the calculating and the various definitions - some take it to mean total removal of CO2 into limestone which will take millions of years.This gives some idea of just how "unsettled" the science is - one researcher uses 5 years, yet another uses 5 million years - and this is only one parameter ! If current outputs of CO2 continue the level will continue to rise but will stabilise at some figure - 450 - 800 ppm being quoted - again it depends on who is doing the estimates - the alarmists presume it continues to rise as if no natural extraction method exists (rainfall and the near limitless ability of the sea to act as a "sink") not to mention the finite limits of our fossil fuel reserves. This linear thinking and modeling in clearly non-linear circumstances is endemic in the pro-AGW camp. "Nature" puts out 25 times as much CO2 as man (excluding volcanic CO2), if its effect was cumulative we would all be dead by now. Alarmists would somehow have us believe that human CO2 emissions will stack up but nature's won't. It is never put that way but is implicit in their assumptions. 

 Some models use different residence times for "natural" CO2 and "Man Made" CO2 - the logic being we are the "polluter" and the natural cycle is "reserved" for nature and our additions are subject to different values. I get the point but not the logic which is absurd - it's a silly way to look at it - all CO2 is subject to the same extraction conditions regardless of its cause. Man made CO2 is exactly the same molecule as CO2 made by nature.

Separating the two is scientific trickery to allow the researcher to apply differing rules to favour the AGW hypothesis. (Note: there are some small isotopic differences but according to Prof Salby - if anything, plants prefer the man made variety.)Some modelers justify this on a hypothetical "tipping point" theory which would have you believe that the CO2 is at a critical mass and a minor increase will cause a major climate change. This "Hair Trigger" climate change approach simply ignores the fact that the paleologic record shows that CO2 has been 10 times higher (not just a percentage) without calamitous effects. The Earth has even entered an ice age with CO2 10 times higher than at present.Before you say that this is a likely outcome, please note that Earth did also not go into an ice-age with CO2 at ten times its current level as well as going into ice-ages with CO2

at current low levels. The paleological records suggest no relationship between CO2 and climate - NONE. The shorter term records show a relationship that CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases. The CO2 "hair trigger" does not exist. CO2 level variance is a result of climate change not the cause of climate change. Climate change is caused primarily by the Sun ! The whole concept of "residence" times seems to be fundamentally flawed and assumes the atmosphere acts as a "reservoir". This does not fit with the fact that atmospheric increases in CO2 equate to only 20% of man's CO2 output - in other words 80% of man's CO2 output is being sunk naturally.Some scientists have proposed treating the atmosphere as a "CO2 pipe" - the more CO2, the greater the "pressure" feeding CO2 into natural systems causing those systems to absorb more CO2. This certainly seems to be the case for most marine and terrestrial species that consume CO2 as a primary nutrient. (see later). This is good news ! At the Troposphere / Stratosphere interface there is a sudden 3-5ppm drop in CO2 plus the atmospheric pressure is declining exponentially. At this level the air is 1/4 (poles) to 1/8 (equator) its sea level density - so the physical amount of CO2 mass is proportionately less and water vapour (the principal greenhouse gas) is almost completely absent. Hence the massive increase in IR transparency from this point. This is where CO2 would act as an inhibitor to outgoing IR radiation - hence the AGW theory - which I hasten to add ignores the fact that CO2 is also an "emitter" so there's both positive and negative radiation consequences which may come close to neutralising each other.  http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxide.htm Airplanes cruise above the troposphere to avoid turbulence - they deposit vast amounts of CO2 in the very place we would least want it to be as it takes a lot longer to come down - because of jet streams and the absence of rainfall (Stratospheric "residency" currently estimated at 5-9 years). Even this does not appear to be causing any measurable problems (other than in the models - which is not really measuring) but needs careful monitoring. I find it hysterical that activists like Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, the Sierra club etc use private planes for personal transport whilst urging us "ground dwellers" to produce less CO2. Either they don't understand their brand of imaginary physics or they really don't believe it either ! (Alternatively they really don't care.)John Travolta owns 5 private jets (including his own airliner) and has a carbon footprint about 800 X the average American - has the unmitigated balls to fly all over the place warning about the dangers of Global Warming. 

http://www.thegwpf.org/new-publications/243-dominic-lawson-green-politicians-face-climate-rebellion.html Do not lose sight of the fact that CO2 only absorbs a small portion of the IR spectrum (i.e. the typical absorption spectrum of CO2, 8% of the total IR spectrum) and at such low concentrations in the atmosphere that its effect cannot be discerned against the background "noise" and the overwhelming effect of IR absorption by water vapour. Alarmists would have you believe that the CO2 absorbs all the IR and that all IR is at energy levels like heat radiating off an asphalt parking area in summer - its not ! CO2 is already absorbing all that it can absorb as it is already fully saturated (99.999%).The bottom line is that IR from the surface cannot directly radiate heat into space so the absorption of IR is of little influence here. Convection carries the heated air and water vapour high enough to successfully radiate into space. Here the CO2 would also be an emitter which would make it an agent of global cooling - but again the effect is so small as to be insignificant. Both effects are tiny and in opposition to each other. Since the "radiative gasses" such as CO2 are required to emit the IR energy from the Upper Troposphere/Stratosphere, a fairly strong argument can be made for global cooling being caused by increases in greenhouse gasses. This would lead to an Upper Troposphere "Cold Spot" but again there is no evidence for this either. The fact that you can build plausible models predicting both Global Warming and Global Cooling simply demonstrates that you can exercise whichever prejudice suits your paradigm. Based on current data it would appear the most likely scenario is that these two phenomena are very small and tend to cancel each other out. There is certainly no evidence for any change in temperature (either way) in the upper equatorial torposphere.. It should be obvious from the foregoing physics that (under a given condition of solar irradiance) the temperature at ground level is unaffected directly by the CO2 content of the lower atmosphere. Indirectly it could become warmer because of the influence of the theoretical Upper Troposphere "hot spot" but no physical evidence of that has yet been found - NONE. IR from the sun faces similar obstacles coming in - it doesn't make it very far. The sun is far too hot to give off IR although some of its spectrum from its outer atmosphere is in the IR range, the amount of energy coming in as IR (the whole IR spectrum) is about 1100 W/m² of a total of about 3200 W/m² Solar Insolation. The same rules apply, the amount of "greenhouse" gas is not going to have any significant effect on incoming IR as it is already fully absorbed. To believe the IPCC model (AR1) you also have to accept a value for the Stephan-Boltzman constant (black body radiation) which is three or four times higher than any normally accepted value (hidden away as "lambda" in the IPCC report), you must also accept the abovementioned magical multiplier effect both of which require suspending the laws of thermodynamics.This is mathematical gerrymandering to get the model to fit the hypothesis.The IPCC's logic is as curious as it is circular: in order to make their model work (well - sort of work - ie support their theory), these figures need to be about 3 times greater (9-10 times when multiplied together) since this is what makes it work then these values must be so ?? There is no proof for this assumption as indeed there cannot be. 

Personally I have more faith in the single bullet theory in the Kennedy assassination. The IPCC's "Radiative Forcing" model assumes heat generates more heat in a magical multiplier effect - not only does this violate several laws of physics but this heat is somehow different to normal heat in that it can multiply and then only multiply by an exact amount (and then stop ?) without causing thermal runaway. If you turned on such a magical process it should simply explode. Numerous physicists have pointed out that if this was true we could use this "phenomenon" to solve the worlds energy supply - it is even better than perpetual motion - which is of course absolute rubbish. The IPCC scientists would have you believe that through a complex series of interactions within the atmosphere a situation arises where more heat can be absorbed - this could possibly be true but for the fact that there is no more heat available - the heat available to the greenhouse gasses is already 99.999% absorbed. The logic goes something like this: The small amount of extra energy retained by the CO2 causes additional evaporation of water (which is 50X more potent than CO2) and this results in more heat being absorbed than the CO2 on its own - the "guestimate" being 3 times more.The problem is self evident: this 3X more should then lead to a further 3X more etc. etc. unless for some reason (impossible within the laws of physics) the second multiplied heat behaves differently to the "first" heat and stops multiplying. Balderdash ! This positive feedback process should continue, avalanche and ultimately explode (or at the very least more or less instantly saturate to the maximum power available) ! If they could demonstrate an overall darkening of the Earth's albedo caused by CO2 they would have a case - but they can't. What has been noticed through the measuring of "Earthshine" on the Moon as an indication of the Earth's albedo (reflectivness) is that it became more reflective as the climate warmed up and less reflective in the most recent cooling - this is contra to the direction needed for it to support the AGW theory's forcing factor". It is now almost certain that this change in albedo is due to increases in cloud cover resulting from the warming (and vice versa) and further emphasises the overall negative forcing factor of high clouds. Another alarmist assertion is that if you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, the additional CO2 would radiate an additional 4 Watts per square meter - which would be more than enough to cause global warming.In absolute terms one cannot fault this assertion - but (and this is a big "but") where did the extra energy come from ? if you are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul within the Earth's energy budget the effects are nullified.It does not show up as an imbalance in the ERBE data and Miskolczi has demonstrated that it is more than negated by the negative forcing factor of the increased water vapour (by forming more reflective clouds).So this is merely conjuring up "data" unsupported by empirical (measured) evidence. One of the more curious aspects of "radiative forcing" is that the models suggest that as the Earth warms up the amount of radiated energy will diminish (again there is a convoluted rationale behind it), this simply flies in the face of all logic and conventional physics and thermodynamics - the hotter a body the more heat it radiates.The argument was however good enough to convince scientists to launch a satellite to test for this.

The ERBE (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite has not found this predicted  (backwards) relationship but instead has found the opposite - exactly what you would expect to find from normal as opposed to the imaginary physics and thermodynamics practiced by the IPCC et al. This came as no surprise to anyone except the alarmists who are busily trying to find out what is "wrong" with "their" satellite data which as per usual is being tortured until it confesses. As per usual any contrary data is obviously wrong.See graphics below.http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/03/carbon-dioxide-forcing-is-false.html The following graphics show 11 of the IPCC climate models which predict a reduction in outgoing radiation due to CO2 induced "radiative forcing" which would of course be a serious problem if it was "real" - fortunately for us they are only models and they are simply WRONG ! The graphic in the middle is from actual data (as opposed to imaginary model data) from the ERBE satellite (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) which shows quite clearly that outgoing radiation increases with temperature as normal physics would suggest. 

 If the 11 models were correct then our atmosphere would be completely unstable and should have been apparent (if not catastrophic) long ago. 

For a brief easy to understand review of the ERBE data go to http://www.vaseee.org/page9/page9.html There are literally thousands of papers on the ERBE data with findings and conclusions all over the place - but the bottom line is that the Earth's radiation budget does in fact balance - outgoing radiation matches incoming radiation so there is no difference to cause Global Warming. 

  The above diagram can be found at NASA or Wikipedia - Note: Nowhere is CO2 mentioned as part of this process. The largest influencers are convection of the latent heat of water vapour and reflections off clouds. The CO2 is in fact less than 0.003% included within the 7% conduction and rising air. (To put that in perspective if we gave CO2 a line and printed the above graphic - landscape on an A4 page with a 1200 dpi printer, then the CO2 line would not even qualify for a pixel. In fact the graphic would have to be 20m wide before CO2 qualified for a single dot width line.- 0.021mm wide) To further put that in perspective - its like looking for a human hair on a graph 80 meters wide - totally insignificant ! Go and have a look also at the Kiehl-Trenberth "Energy Budget" (one of the models used by the IPCC very similar to the diagram above).It shows 342 Wm-2  (average energy striking the earth) (Based on averages not actual Solar Insolation - see comment later on "simplistic" modeling techniques). And a total of 342 Wm-2  (average energy leaving the earth) So everything is in balance (so far so good) But it shows a magical and regenerative 324 Wm-2 within the greenhouse gases this simply violates the first law of thermodynamics as well as several other laws relating to energy absorption / radiation. (There is certainly energy stored and radiated within the atmosphere but definitely not created, Wm-2 is an inappropriate unit of measure if this is what they are alluding to.)

 Its almost as much as the energy of the Sun - being magically generated within the atmosphere - it should be obvious that this cannot be. If the inputs and outputs match, where on earth is the increased energy coming from to raise temperatures ? this model is clearly internally inconsistent - unless you accept the magical creation of energy within the models algorithms. There are of course local IR emissions diminishing with height - but this is a "nett sum zero" process - energy is neither created nor destroyed in this IR exchange. If you consider a sealed box of hot radiative gas in a non-conductive, thermally reflective enclosure - there is ongoing radiation within the enclosure and ongoing exchanges of photons between the gas atoms but this does not make the gas hotter or colder. Individual atoms will be become hotter and colder for brief periods but on average the gas simply remains at a constant temperature.This Wm-2 radiation is "nett sum = zero" using these numbers to justify warming is nonsense. See the following peer reviewed & published technical paper by Dr. Ferenc. Miskolczi (astrophysicist working with NASA) in which he determines (from NOAA data from 1948) the IR "optical depth" of the Earth's atmosphere is static governed by water vapour and turbulence (of that water vapour) and it is unaffected by CO2 - ergo CO2 is not causing global warming as propounded in AGW theory. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/ Dr. Murry Salby, Chair of Climate Science at Australia’s Macquarie University, has been looking at C12 to C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world and has concluded that man-made emissions don’t even control the global CO2 levels, let alone the climate. (The difference in C12 & C13 isotopic ratios allows us to determine which CO2 came from burning fossil fuel as opposed to that liberated by nature.)

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/ Not surprisingly both of these papers have been criticised by the warmists - but both papers use established empirical data ( ie real measured data) and therefore trump any theoretical or model derived "proof". All the objections that I have read invoke theoretical claims which is pretty much the same thing as saying that since these facts don't fit the theory, the facts must be wrong ! (AGW's perenial friend - circular reasoning.) These two papers alone destroy the AGW theory ! Whilst the paper was being reviewed, Miskolczi was asked to withdraw the paper by NASA - he refused and stated that NASA is not an honest research environment. There

are just far too many examples of NASA bending or ignoring the science to fit the theory as determined by their political masters. Miskolczi has demonstrated from NOAA & NASA data that the feedback effect is negative - negative feedback is a stable and self-regulating process.Miskolczi's paper demolishes the very foundation of the entire AGW theory as originally propounded by Arrhenius. Miskolczi's hypothesis holds true for data extending from 1948 covering practically two full warming and cooling cycles - none of the alarmist models do that - most of them work only on the most recent warming - well that's how they were crafted and unsurprisingly the forecasts made with them are now failing. A Brief Note On Positive Feedback Systems Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable and tend to avalanche uncontrollably. The most common example of this is an audio amplifier - bring the microphone too close to the speaker and you get the characteristic feedback "howl" - this in spite of the fact that all amplifiers have negative feedback to limit this. I once accidentally built an amplifier with positive feedback - it could do nothing but howl.As pointed out earlier if our atmosphere generated more heat from heat it would explode or near instantly avalanche to the maximum power available.  Why anyone should continue to hold dear beliefs that run counter to normal physics and observation is quite beyond me. "Because my computer model says so !" - Yeah I know, and bumblebees can't fly ! (See later.) The religion metaphor seems to be the only explanation ! Faith without the burden of proof ! In computer modeling the most common caution is "Garbage In = Garbage Out" the IPCC has turned this into "Garbage In = Gospel Out". http://www.friendsofscience.org  Incoming solar energy is also reflected off cloud cover - but of course this has no role in the IPCC models other than as a constant. ("Because the role of cloud cover is too poorly understood" ??? - The whole subject is poorly understood but that hasn't stopped them cherry picking those items that support their hypothesis.) By simply making this variable a constant it is simply removed from the formulas as a factor - yeah ! right ! Here I might agree that man's emissions might be causing aerosols and possibly reacting with cosmic radiation my give rise to increased cloud cover - but of course this mostly causes global cooling rather than global warming - something I am concerned about. But since it would weaken the IPCC's already terminally weak model is studiously ignored. Volcanic  Production of CO2

 Thus far all the figures quoted exclude volcanic CO2 - the reason being that the truth is we really do not have any reliable number for this variable.The IPCC currently estimates volcanic CO2 at 150-250 Million Tonnes P.A. – a figure based on a 1980's sampling and extrapolation of land based volcanoes whilst ignoring the volcanoes & vents spread out along 640000km of sub sea faults. Additionally, sub

sea volcanoes produce more CO2 than land based volcanoes due to the nature of the magma. This CO2 promptly dissolves but eventually makes its way into the atmosphere and should not be ignored at part of the total CO2 flux. The IPCC also ignores eruptions, dismissing them as short-lived events of little consequence. The eruption of the Eyjafjajokull volcano in Iceland obliterated all the "Greenhouse Gas" savings we have made since 1980 in just 4 days - man is simply puny compared to Mother Nature. So if you traded in you SUV on a Prius - its all been in vain. Some claim that Mt. Pinatubo spewed more CO2  into the atmosphere in the year of its last major eruption (which destroyed the Clark Air Force base) than man has done since the dawn of the industrial revolution. This is almost certainly overstating the case - its more likely 8-10 GT or a bit more than man puts out in a year. Estimates for the Mt Pinatubo eruption vary wildly - the IPCC puts it at 2 million tonnes - most vulcanologists quote Mt Pinatubo at 3 million tonnes per annum just "ticking over" - up to 10 Billion tones is a more common estimate for the actual eruption - certainly the mass of ejected solid material is in the order of 30+ billion tonnes and the mass of gas is normally estimated from this.For the IPCC to place the CO2 output from this massive eruption at only 2/3 of its normally accepted annual output is just typical of the "adjustment" of inconvenient data by the IPCC. After Mt Pinatubo there was a ±4-6 ppm "spike in atmospheric CO2 which would calculate out to ±8 GT.   (3ppm would be ±6GT and 5ppm ±10GT however this does not include carbon discharged as particulate/dissolved/solid matter also the "spike" is highly variable depending on where and when it was measured. It is likely that a similar quantity was rapidly deposited into the adjacent oceans as soluble carbonates where in spite of the quantity would barely register.) (Note: In 1980 it was believed that 80% of all volcanism was on the land and that that there were no more than 10000 volcanoes and vents (fumaroles) beneath the oceans - mostly inactive. More recent surveys have documented 201055 volcanic cones on the sea floor - 5000 of them being active - given the small area and length of fault lines explored this can be extrapolated to as many as 3.5 million volcanoes - we know more about the surface of the moon.) If find the gleeful exploration of deep sea "black smokers" (by scientists such as Bob Ballard) and the extremeophile life forms that live off them somewhat amusing - the vast quantities of CO2, Hydrogen Sulphide, Iron Sulphide etc etc emanating from these fumaroles would be considered the most hideous "pollution" which would need to be stopped immediately if this was being pumped into the Ocean by man. (Don't get me wrong - these are great scientific discoveries - its just the double standards that bother me: Man=Bad; Nature=Good. and no, I'm not advocating man's pollution of the oceans.) http://oilpatchreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68:aussie-geologist-claims-political-tide-is-turning-against-climate-alarmists&catid=52:friends-of-science A single small sub sea volcano studied by the US geological survey was found to be releasing 1.5 Million tonnes of CO2 per annum into the atmosphere (via the ocean).http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1769/chapters/p1769_chapter26.pdf

 It follows that sub sea volcanic CO2 is considerably more than IPCC land based CO2 estimates.Estimates of sub sea volcanic CO2 of 50 to 350 Billion tones are now being estimated.Once again man’s output of 8 billion tones can be seen to be insignificant against Mother Nature’s production and consumption of CO2.

Take note that the error of the estimate is at least an order of magnitude larger than man's contribution - and this is only one factor and the one small volcano actually measured was producing as much CO2 on its own as 1% of the entire IPCC global estimate. It follows from the above that the IPCC estimate is probably out by a factor of 50x and that while ignoring the potentially unknown volcanoes could push it to 500 to 1000x. Mother Nature has been sequestering CO2 into limestone (untold trillions of tonnes of it) for billions of years. Were it not for volcanic production of CO2 we would have lost it completely from our atmosphere and life as we know it would no longer exist. Admittedly man is putting some of that sequestered Carbon back into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels but the amount is really insignificant when compared to the total  CO2 flux. Current estimates of ocean sedimentation run to about 38 billion tonnes of CO2  per annum (almost 5 x man's output) - permanently lost every year - and that only represents 0.1% of the CO2 in the ocean sedimenting out every year as plankton, sea shells and other dead marine life. The oceans absorb an estimated 2.2 Billion tonnes of CO2  per annum (from 92 GT absorbed less 90Gt expired) - so this represents a net loss of about 36GT - sometimes referred to as the "missing Carbon".Without replacing this "loss" via volcanism we would ultimately find ourselves with a severely CO2  depleted ocean & thence atmosphere. In the absence of severe volcanic production, we need to be increasing our output of CO2  not diminishing it. Paleologically speaking we are at a CO2 low point (because of diminished volcanism) and I believe had it not been for the upward trend caused by man's emissions (ie if the downward trend was continuing) there would currently be a general alarm over the loss of the atmospheric CO2 this would be a lot scarier than the current increases - that really could kill us all. The warmists say that sub sea production is irrelevant and that whatever it is, is simply matched by the rate of sedimentation - this trite rationalisation is unsupported by any scientific observations. This is fatuous, its like saying "it doesn't matter how much (or how little) is being pumped into the Oceans, Mother Nature must be taking care of it !" imagine I tried that same argument for man's production of atmospheric CO2  I would quite rightly be shot down in flames.  After a protracted quiescent period of some 500 years, volcanism has been steadily increasing for the last 30 years - this alone could explain the increases in CO2 but is by and large played down by the IPCC. So how much CO2 is as a result of Volcanic activity - truth is we haven't got a clue! Since our estimates vary from "very little" to a "helluvalot" - that's not particularly helpful but would at least be an honest assessment. The IPCC's assessment of volcanic CO2 production would be on the very low side of what we knew in 1980. Based on current knowledge (which is admittedly still far too little) it is ludicrously low.

 WARMING IS HAPPENING ELSEWHERE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. NASA have discovered elevated temperatures on Mars, Jupiter & Neptune as well as on some of their moons like Titan. Agreed this warming is very small but otherwise in line with what you might expect if caused by the same source - the Sun. Whilst there is a remote possibility (there always is) that this might be coincidental - there is no way man's production of CO2 on Earth can possibly influence any of our neighbouring planets.  There are arguments that global warming on Mars may be due to dust storms (and other possibly valid arguments) but for it to be simultaneously happening on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Titan etc suggests the sun is the culprit. This is simply desperation by scientists wedded to the global warming theory. Remember their reputations, and in many cases, funding are predicated on man made global warming. No warming = No funding !

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Significant changes in temperatures and atmospherics on virtually all the planets and their moons have been detected - one thing's for sure - it isn't being caused by your SUV ! Even our own planet is exhibiting some strange phenomena - such as deep ocean bed warming unexplained by AGW (probably related to increasing volcanism). Which the warmists foolishly try to explain as heat from the surface sinking to the bottom ? - please ! heat rises ! every schoolchild knows that.  TEMPERATURE RISES BEFORE   CO 2 INCREACES - A SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Data from the Vostock & Greenland ice cores and various others show that warming precedes CO2 increases by about 800 years - elevated temperatures cause elevated CO2.The IPCC simply has the cart before the horse ! (Prior to 1990 this time offset had not been noticed - the IPCC was up and running before the 800 year time lag came to light. It was well known before Al Gore made An Inconvenient Truth - but he simply ignored the science and published his fatuous piece of alarmism anyway.) Curiously it was the CO2 / temperature relationship from the ice cores which first "confirmed" the AGW hypothesis and set alarm bells ringing.When the 800 year lag was conclusively proven this should have been the death knell for the hypothesis - but no - by this time there were too many "believers" to be dissuaded from their religion by actual facts. A recent warmist sponsored study has narrowed this to 400 years (with a smaller error bar). This has been trumpeted by the warmists as a "narrowing of the gap" - I'm sorry but for as long as the data shows temperature rises before CO2  then CO2  is a result of warming not a cause of warming - case closed. The IPCC CO2 / temperature series graphic (AR 1) disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that at a casual glance CO2  increases appear to precede temperature

increases. The graphic is however technically correct but starts with most recent data to left so when scanned from left to right reads "wrong" - it looks like CO2 precedes temperature rises - it does not. The IPCC's own graphic shows that it does not if you read it correctly.  The IPCC has also presented this data with time shift omitted "for clarity". This smacks of deliberate misrepresentation  (How To Lie With Statistics). The IPCC correctly refers to the good correlation between CO2 and temperatures and it does have a highly significant correlation - more so when the time shift is magically removed. Caveat: Correlation does not equal Causality.(For the statistically minded correlation refers to standardised "F","T" & R² tests of correlation and significance - the assumption of causality is however false.)If you subject the data to Vector Auto Regression Analysis (as opposed to straight regression analysis) which considers the time offset and is infinitely more appropriate, CO2 has very little significance with temperature as the dependant variable (effect) and CO2 as the independent variable (cause) but is highly significant with CO2 as the "effect" and temperature as the "cause". (Other than in Science Fiction there is no known physics that permit effects to "time travel" backwards therefore vector auto regression ignores "backwards" relationships as they can't exist.)Selecting the statistical method which gives the result best suited to your hypothesis as opposed to using the method best suited to the math's problem is yet another example of fraudulent science. Vector Auto Regression (VAR) is normally used in Economic or Marketing time series evaluations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_autoregression Note: The IPCC has increasingly taken to using the word "attribution" for "correlation" - correlation has a very precise mathematical meaning and requires clarification of error bars, confidence limits and the like. Attribution is mathematically meaningless but often will carry the same import to a non-mathematically inclined reader. This amounts to asserting mathematical "facts" without having to bother with troublesome questions of the validity - verbiage being used to paper over appallingly bad science once again.  To put this in simple terms, the IPCC is trying to get you to believe that if you pour Carbon Dioxide into the air today, you will make it hotter yesterday (about the time the Magna Carta was signed). They obviously don't express it this way but that is the relationship driving their models and it should be obvious that something is dreadfully wrong with that. None of the IPCC reports address this fundamental problem - its simply unaddressable and therefore is completely ignored by the IPCC. This is one of my fundamental problems with the IPCC - it simply ignores contrary data - you cannot do that and claim to be a serious scientist. Admittedly I'm doing much the same thing here - the IPCC scientists claim they don't want confusion - I would say that they don't want to confuse their theory with facts - I am therefore claiming I don't want to confuse the facts with theory. Please be my guest -compare the theory with the facts and come to an informed conclusion. The bottom line is elevated CO2 is caused by increased temperatures - not the other way around (the Champagne effect from warming Oceans - increased organic decomposition rates etc. etc.). 

 In the above graphic the correlation between CO2 and sea temperatures is rock solid AND there is a causal mechanism - the warmer a liquid the less gas can dissolve in it (Henry's Law). If the sea warms up it must outgas / absorb less CO2 ! There is more than 50 times the atmospheric CO2 dissolved in the sea - even a minor change in sea temperature (caused by solar warming) is obviously going to have a significant effect on the amount of CO2 liberated by the sea to the atmosphere.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law Understand cause and effect - raising an umbrella does not cause it to rain, when a rooster crows it does not cause the sun to rise.Increases in CO2 follow a temperature rise, it is an effect not a cause - Got It !  One of the favourite and unsubstantiated claims of the warmists is that this lag may be true for historical data but it is anticipated (the models say so) that man's CO2 production will reverse this trend in the short to long term future. This is an assertion unsubstantiated by any science but is said with such authority it must surely be true ! How convenient ! They make an assertion that they do not have to prove for 15-30 years. Well the bad news for the warmists just got worse. A recently published scientific study of the data reveals the time lag exists even in the current short term data by about 10-11 years once again affirming that increased atmospheric CO2 is (partially) a result of oceanic warming which in turn is caused by solar variance (and very little else). Once again demonstrating that CO2 is an effect not a cause of global warming. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 At the risk of repeating myself - there is no evidence based on empirical observation (that is real measured data) of global warming induced by man's CO2 emissions.The “evidence" in all cases comes from computer modeling. When the model outputs match reality, will someone please call me.

 I find it totally unsurprising that computer models crafted about the premise that CO2 causes warming do in fact predict warming from CO2  increases. Ta-Daaaa ! So the warmist models rely on one or more of these basic premises :- 1) Heat is created. (by magic ?)                                     (Violates #1 Rule of Thermodynamics)2) Radiation diminishes as temperature increases.     (Violates #2 Rule of                                                                                             Thermodynamics)3) Heat generates more heat (subset of 2) above)       (Perpetual motion - violates too                                                                                            many laws to list.)4) Effects can "time travel" backwards from cause.     (Jules Verne Physics)5) CO2 causes warming.                                                 (An unproven assertion.) As preposterous as this appears, when stated in such a blunt fashion - it is after all what the complicated and convoluted theories rely upon - but hidden behind a veil of technological jargon and formulae indecipherable to most people.The alarmists would argue that that is not what the various models and hypothesis say - true - but it is an inescapable outcome exploring the equations further. THE UPPER TROPOSPHERE "HOT SPOT" IS MISSING ! - ANOTHER SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT TRUTH. The CO2 Signature or hot spot in the upper troposphere (as predicted by AGW theory) would occur if the increased CO2 in the stratosphere was inhibiting the emission of IR - this would cause this zone to get hotter until radiative balance was restored. No hot spot has been detected despite the data from thousands of radiosondes sent to look for it (see the comments from Dr David Evans later) Even if this zone heated up it is not certain (but probable) that this would result in higher ground temperatures.In this case "hot" is a relative term - the actual upper troposphere temperature is between minus 40 and minus 60°C - this is the temperature driving the IR emissions from the earth into space 24 hours a day (the mechanism works at night as well) which balances our "energy budget" - even a minor increase in temperature is going to have a very large effect on emission of heat (and there is no indication of it happening) and even if there is a small increase here it is unclear how significantly this will influence ground temperature. It should also be noted that the absorption of IR is almost unaffected by temperature - emission of IR is seriously affected by temperature - something like to the 4th power of temperature (K°) - so even small temperature increases have very significant effects on the emission of IR. Yet another seriously inconvenient truth based on the laws of physics that mitigates against the AGW hypothesis. Note: Most weather stations send up 2 radiosondes per day - that's thousands of data bits around the world every month - this comprehensive data set does not support the "Hot Spot" prediction of the AGW hypothesis. Since they cannot find evidence of their hypothesis by physical measurement, the alarmists have taken to calculating this temperature via a computer model (A. Sherwood & B.D. Santer et al) using proxy data (such as wind speed) which low and behold says it is warming up. I am left speechless at their audacity. 

(Santer was the scientist who altered the first draft IPCC report and deleted skeptical sections without permission of the panel - see later   http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report/  ) Santer's hypothesis is that the hot spot is there but we can't see it - its hidden in the "fog" of the data. ("It's there trust me I'm a doctor !" is not a scientific argument.)Sherwood's hypothesis infers an anomalous relationship between wind speed and temperatures and jumps to the conclusion that temperatures are higher than the thermometers are recording. This assumes that anemometers are somehow better at measuring temperature than thermometers ???It also ignores the fact that the anemometers could be the cause of the anomaly or the anomaly either does not exist, is a result of solar warming, is naturally variable or has some other cause. (Ignoring all other possibilities other than man being the culprit is the most common omission in all warmist propositions.) Both are scientific claptrap but of course have been lapped up by the alarmists and quoted ad-nauseum.  Computer modeling inconvenient data into supportive data is one of the most common tactics in the alarmist arsenal - when presented with contrary "hard" (that is measured) data, their assumption is the data must be wrong. So they rush headlong into computer modeling and produce a model that "disproves" the hard data.  "Kirk to Enterprise !  Reality check please Scotty." Disproving reality with a computer model is just plain dumb. It can serve as a heuristic to test our understanding. Example: We used to be able to prove (via a computer model based on known aerodynamics) that bumblebees can't fly. Clearly they did, so something was wrong with our science - it turns out they "swim" through the air according to the laws of fluid dynamics - so we did eventually figure it out.Global warmists would have concluded that bumblebees in fact couldn't fly ! their model says so ! Professor Michael Kelly (Professor of Physics) in his notes on the House of Lords review of the CRU data expressed these thoughts (amongst others) which indicate that he was far more critical in private than the text of the report suggests.

"I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data.This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head." http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/ http://mitworld.mit.edu!video/730   In science a theory / model usually leads to some prediction of an unobserved phenomena (such as Einstein's bending of light / timespace by gravity). When the phenomena is discovered it tends to prove the theory / model as its creator cannot be accused of fudging his theory or model to match the observations. This is generally very powerful proof !

Of course when the observations fail to find the prediction it tends to shoot the theory down in flames.The absence of the predicted Tropospheric hot spot and the radiative forcing signature shoots the AGW hypothesis down in flames - of course its proponents will go to any lengths to disprove this. When this fails I am sure they will claim it doesn't matter - we'll see. “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” - UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions. I have actually seen the IPCC "Hot Spot" projection graphic presented in the press as proof of what man's emissions ARE doing to the atmosphere - this is false and misleading.It is a projection only and one for which absolutely no physical evidence has yet been found.Even the colours used to project temperature are alarmist - the normal atmosphere appears a cool blue whilst the projection (only a few points of a degree higher) is projected in oranges and reds. This creates the illusion of a drastic increase in temperature to anyone simply looking at it without referring to the actual data values or explanations.

Now replace the title "Actual" with "Normal" and "Predicted" with "Man's Impact" and you have some idea of the lie being told. This lie is by some press and not the IPCC - it is probably the result of ignorant or deliberate alarmist interpretation by the press. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html I am not denying the "hand of man" in the current CO2 figures - merely questioning both the magnitude of its effects and the significance thereof. Its effects are almost certainly more beneficial than harmful. Nor am I some sort of neo-Luddite who would deny the usefulness of predicting the future via computer modeling. However such models must be demonstrably robust - something the global warming models are not.  

From 1945 to 1970 temperatures declined slightly in line with sunspot / solar activity in spite of increasing CO2 levels. Alarmists blame this anomaly on pollution aerosols causing increased cloud cover whilst ignoring the IR absorption properties of photochemical smog and soot so prevalent at the time. Note once again the selection of only that portion of the equation (including clouds this time) which supports their hypothesis - Cherry picking once again. Of course they have a computer model to simulate their hypothesis. There are more than 20 models which each tackle some inconvenient scientific truth but no "unified" model. This is simply because most of the effects have swings and roundabouts effects so while disproving one element you might strengthen the other - so they use biased models against each piece of non-corroborative data. This is not good scientific practice. Furthermore these models are often daisy chained with the output of one model forming the input to the next - each of which selectively amplifies their part in the equation - this process can result in minor errors or biases being grossly over amplified. "It is beyond coincidence that all these errors should be in the same direction."Dr. Matt Ridley - Angus Millar lecture to the Royal Society - Edinburgh - Nov 1st 2011 If you examine the IPCC models, they are simplistic in the extreme - treating everything on the basis of averages. This may seem reasonable until you realise that this means the Earth is thus treated as a flat disk without poles, without night or day, illuminated by an "average" watery light with every square meter illuminated exactly the same. This is clearly preposterous. And IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri (a railway engineer / economist ) then has the unmitigated affrontery to refer to skeptics as "flat earthers" when his organisation is using genuinely "flat earth" models !

The "tracking" accuracy of these models comes simply from the constant fine tuning of the models to suit the available data - and the distortion or elimination of any data that does not "fit" ! - These models are highly contrived.

This oft quoted tracking accuracy has of course been shot to hell by the post 1999 downward trend. (they also never did track well with history - the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period - So the IPCC simply "disappeared" data for those periods.) Models are supposed to produce forecasts - they are not supposed to be constantly adjusted to suit the facts - post-modern science once again.All the prior forecasts are demonstrably wrong - this post-modern science tactic of constantly adjusting the models to fit the facts is very shoddy science.  Before any mathematical model is used to "Forecast" it first has to be verified by "Hindcasting" ie predicting the known past data from prior data - if it cannot do that, one has to seriously question the validity of the model. All the alarmist climate models do not hindcast well particularly with respect to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.As Prof. Lintzen stated in his presentation to the House of Commons "In climatology we cannot even predict the past, we certainly cannot predict the future." IPCC senior scientist Kevin Trenberth noted recently, “none of the climate models correspond remotely to the current observed climate.” (Referring to post 1999 downward trend). In one of the leaked e-mails he says "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. It appears that the planet has been stuck for about ten years at a temperature that is about 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1961-1998 average...."Trenberth has subsequently clarified that he meant the travesty is that our measuring equipment is failing to find the warming which he "knows" is occurring because of "forcing". He "thinks" (asserts) that the heat is currently being lost to some unknown cause such as melting ice or deepwater currents. He has no proof for any of this and the fact that this wasn't happening during the warming but has magically appeared to screw with his precious hypothesis seems not to bother him a jot.If deepwater warming was occurring we would see massive release of the CO2 stored in the depths by cold and pressure. Methinks the more logical explanation is that the CO2 forced warming is not occurring at all. (The laws of Thermodynamics agree with me.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Three out of four studies of the ARGO sea temperature data found a recent leveling off and cooling - and did not find any evidence of the "missing heat" claimed by Trenberth. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths-ocean-heat-still-missing/ For an excellent review of the leaked "climategate" e-mails go to the following site :- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-weekly-standard-scientists-behaving-badly/ Also visit :- http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/ For a 30 year timeline (available in *.pdf) of distortion and deceit by a handful of climate scientists that has brought us to this pretty pass. (They probably meant well but then so did Drs. Mengele & Lysenko.) http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15684

The IPCC models totally ignore the more significant correlation between solar output and temperature. NASA have recently and very reluctantly admitted that this correlation is more correct. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454 http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm The IPCC model ignores the role of the sun other than as a constant when they know perfectly well it isn't. They dismiss its variability as too small to be considered. Unfortunately its close correlation would demote their cherished CO2 if included.You can only "prove" CO2 to be the culprit if the major influencers are ignored, an honest model including these variables would cause CO2 to vanish into the remaining noise in the data.  Here you would need a long boring lesson in multivariate modeling but suffice to say that if you remove the significant variables the model will find predictive power in almost anything - the variability in the number of Buddhist monks for instance - the worst that can happen is it is multiplied by zero. Unfortunately CO2 has good though technically invalid correlation (the time travel problem). The IPCC has ignored or demoted to constants - which have no variant effect on the model's output - the major players - water vapour, cloud cover & variability in solar output (Insolation). They then have the wanton hubris to assert the model is robust enough to accurately make predictions of impending doom. Predictions I might add that don't tally with current observations or historical records - but we are nonetheless expected to pony up trillions of dollars in taxation to combat this unproven "problem". As regards correlation, one would not be surprised to find that ice cream sales correlate to hours of sunlight / temperature - you would however be stunned if someone were to suggest that hot weather is caused by ice cream sales - yet this is precisely what the IPCC is trying to get you to believe with regard to CO2.To put this another way it's like saying: high temperatures cause sunny weather !In all these cases the correlation is crystal clear, solid and......absolutely and obviously false. By this warmist logic of reversing cause & effect I can absolutely prove that :- Ice cream sales cause hot weather.& High temperatures on Earth cause spots to appear on the sun. Ergo ice cream sales cause solar acne - voila ! a "Clearasil" Tax on ice cream is clearly needed ! (Yes, I am being facetious.) Similarly the inclusion of any dataset that closely correlates to the dependant variable (regardless of its sign or magnitude) will be seen by and used by the model in preference to more deviant datasets. Hence the cavalier dismissal of solar variance correlation by the IPCC - if included it will eclipse the role of CO2 even by their methods (and we can't have that now - can we ?). 

This is to me a key piece of scientific fraud. The Sun is the provider of all the power that drives climate - how on earth can you simply ignore it ??? Believe me, demoting any variable to a constant is the statistical equivalent of ignoring it completely. For those of you who studied Calculus you may remember that on differentiating an equation, the constants vanish - they play no part in the analysis of variability. Including variables as constants is "sham science" they have no effect at all and could simply be left out - the IPCC includes them as constants only to create the illusion that they are being considered. If your modeling only considers man's outputs as variables then such models can only find man is responsible - no other outcome is possible ! Below - just to be silly, is a (phony) graphic showing the inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperatures. 

 You could similarly argue a strong correlation between keyboard use and recent global temperatures. If you included these clearly ridiculous data sets into your model they would improve its predictive power but since cause cannot be established they should not be included. (We could equally idiotically claim that global warming is killing off pirates.) Think about it for a moment - any rising or falling trend will "correlate" well to CO2 and could be used to bolster the argument but without explicit causality should not be included. The point I am trying to make is that you need to be certain of causality. There is to date no proof that CO2 causes global warming - even the IPCC's AR 1's first draft stated that. (see later) COMPUTER MODELING IS NOT DATA The problem with computer modeling is that these models are built on literally hundreds of theories and assumptions on how climate behaves. Essentially each model builder has an idea in his head of an outcome and adjusts the dozens of "fudge factors" until that outcome is achieved.

The modeler then attempts to get his model to track the records - since this is essentially impossible this process usually results in the selection of only those records which suit (or can be manipulated to suit) the model.The modeler then uses the model to feed in yet further guesses as to what the future might look like. The more alarmist the future the better - it is more likely to grab headlines (and funding). Einstein added just one "fudge factor" - The Cosmological Constant - to his theories to square them away with the way the observed universe appears to behave. Although it turns out he might yet be proven right he described it as "the biggest mistake in my life". These model builders are adding hundreds of "fudge factors" - from a scientific point of view this is clearly a ridiculous process. Essentially this model building is a scientist prophesising the future and then trotting out a load of mathematical mumbo-jumbo to support his prophesy. He might just as well have used a crystal ball (and here I am not joking or being facetious). Climate systems and any model that purports to describe them are inherently chaotic -Prof. Edward Lorenz came up with "Chaos Theory" as well as the "Butterfly Effect" - he discovered that a climate model produced two completely different results on two runs on the same data - it should not have done so - further investigation revealed that the second run was on data that had been rounded down from 6 to 3 decimal places of accuracy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effectOf course this can be interpreted two ways  :-The alarmist view will claim that this shows how sensitive climate is to small changes.andThe skeptical viewpoint that will claim that climate models are likely to be unreliable at best, given that the most important variables in the models are unknown and unknowable and any "best guess" is simply a prejudice on the part of the model builder. Even the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth a staunch AGW supporter has come close to voicing skepticism over the veracity of the models :-“There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”"None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.""In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.""Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors." The eminent Nobel Physicist Richard Feynmann called computer modeling a "disease" - see the comments later in Michael Crichton's Michelin lecture at Caltech. 

"The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong."

Richard Feynman, according to The Meaning of it All, 1999

Example of prior false forecast by a scientist: Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s prediction in a speech at Swarthmore College on Earth Day, April 22, 1970:"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but

eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." I wonder what the weather is like on his planet at the moment ? There is a huge difference between a "scientific forecast" and a "forecast by a scientist"!

We have now reached the point where "scientists" obtain their "data" from computer simulations...........???

Visit this critique of a "Peer Reviewed" "Science Paper" published in Nature magazine (which has unfortunately become an unashamed propagandist of AGW hysteria).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/nature-magazines-folie-a-deux-part-deux/

"The problem is not computer models. The problem is Nature Magazine trying to pass off the end results of a long computer model daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science. Call me crazy, but when your results represent the output of four computer models, which are fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model but run with different parameters, in order to demonstrate that flood risks have changed from increasing GHGs … well, when you do that, you need to do more than wave your hands to convince me that your flood risk results are not only a valid representation of reality, but are in fact a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions."

Once again there is no unified model so a number of models which selectively amplify their area of influence are effectively daisy chained together to produce the result the scientists were looking for in the first place - this is futureology or crystal ball gazing but using a computer to cloak it in scientific rectitude. If these "scientists" "rolled bones", dissected the entrails of a slaughtered lamb or gazed into a crystal ball you would instantly dismiss them as nutcases - but since they perform their mysticism with a computer we are fooled into thinking it to be "science" - It's Not ! 

 

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE ? Graphic below - recent global temperatures vs. CO2 measured at Muana Loa Observatory - Hawaii (often quoted by alarmists as showing correlation between CO2 and temperatures - which it does in only the broadest terms of trend - and then only up to 2002.) 

 CO2 is increasing - but does not closely correlate to temperature. (CO2 is the green line) Current temperature trend is downwards (purple line). If you believe that CO2 causes warming, then there is a very serious disconnect between your belief and the actual data between 2002 and present day. The regular seasonal bumpiness in the CO2 line is caused by the seasonal variation in sea temperatures and is not simply "noise" as the alarmists and Al ("its complicated") Gore would have you believe. (For the statistically minded "noise" is random and irregular - there is nothing random or irregular in the CO2 data.) Refer to the earlier "rock solid" correlation of CO2 to sea temperature from the same locale/data. repeated below... 

 Higher sea temperatures lead to higher CO2 levels - as demonstrated above - hence the alarmist dismissal as "noise".

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28116

Now simply consider the two graphics - Does air temperature correlate to CO2 - No!.Does CO2 correlate to sea temperature - Yes ! (Note: This is from the same data sets at the same location - it simply depends on how you choose to analyse and present it !) Even if you accept the broad trend correlation of temperature to CO2 you would have to admit that the "fit" of CO2 to sea temperature is very much better. You might of course argue that higher CO2 causes higher sea temperatures - but that's not the AGW argument and no mechanism whatsoever exists for CO2 to cause this. Some warmists are now trying to explain how CO2 is causing the oceans to heat up - clearly they can see this data as damning evidence against the AGW hypothesis. It is extremely difficult for warm air to heat water from above because of surface tension and boundary effects - try heating a bowl of water with a hot air gun - from above without heating the container - fill to brim -  and you will see what I mean.It is generally accepted that the oceans are heated by the sun and transmit that energy to the atmosphere - the average air temperature is lower than the average sea temperature over the oceans therefore the air cannot heat the sea - Rule #2 of thermodynamics = heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body. 

 

WHAT IS THE PALEOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE ? Consider the graphic below (note how CO2 impoverished we are today) and consider the CO2 line (black) and the temperature line (blue) - can you see any obvious long term correlation between temperature/climate and CO2 - I'll be damned if I can. 

 You might also ask yourself how we can assume our current climate to be "normal" or why we assume that this should remain "stable" - there is no evidence for either of these assumptions in the paleological records either.Why is warmer "worse" - we simply don't know. Why is any "climate change" automatically considered to be "worse" - surely there is a "better" option but this is never considered. A great many climatologists think a warmer climate carries more benefits than costs. A simple observation is that 90% of all species exist in the tropics - only 2% exist in the arctics - life thrives on warmth so why the apparent desire for a cooler climate ? I'm puzzled ! Clearly we are still emerging from the last ice age - if paleologic history is anything to go by the Earth is going to get substantially warmer and CO2 has nothing to do with it.  Note: Technically speaking we are in a warm interglacial of the Neocene Icehouse - we are actually still in an ice age - we should be hoping it gets warmer.

 Even within this warm interglacial we are recovering from a prolonged colder spell. The above graphic (from the GISP2 Greenland Ice Core Data) shows that throughout the last 10000 years it has been considerably warmer (within what was already a colder period), that we are exiting a prolong cold period and that previous recoveries from cold to warmer have proceeded as fast and faster than current rates of change. Note also that the prior warm periods (Minoan, Roman & Medieval) are associated with great wealth and human progress. Man made CO2 had nothing to do with the prior temperature cycles, why should we conclude that man is responsible for the current warming on the basis of such flimsy "evidence". Ice ages have occurred with CO2 as much as 10 times its current levels - if CO2 is the "forcing" agent suggested by the alarmists the world should have fried. Larry Bell has suggested that "The real climate crisis will arrive when our planet's warm ice age vacation ends !"  I would be alarmed if things were actually headed the other way, we can adapt to a warmer climate, the first world would not survive an ice age. Fact: In the first world cold weather kills more people per year than hot weather.

It’s Cold, Not Global Warming, That We Should Be Worried About In Britain each year there’s an official estimate made of the “excessive winter mortality” – the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses.The winter of 2011-12 was relatively mild, but still 24,000 perished. The current winter’s figure is 30,000 making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And no one seems upset. But the reaction to the 2003 heat-wave (which even the alarmists admit was largely a freak weather event) was extraordinary, as it was blamed for 2,000 deaths. The UK government’s then chief scientific officer declared that climate change was “more serious than the threat of terrorism” in terms of lives that could be lost. Such language is never used about the cold. Yet further evidence of the Orwellian climactic doublespeak by the alarmists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

Solar Activity at the End of the 20th Century Was the Highest in 9,000 Years A 2012 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reconstructs solar activity from isotopes in ice cores and tree rings, and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was at the highest levels of the past 9,000 years. The paper confirms other peer-reviewed publications indicating that the Sun was particularly active during the 20th century in comparison to the past several millennia.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/paper-finds-solar-activity-at-end-of.html This (amongst many other such reports / data) suggests that the sun, not CO2, was responsible for the most recent warming.  What about the other greenhouse gasses ? The other "greenhouse gasses" are (in descending order) Ozone ( O3 ) Methane ( CH4 ), Nitrous Oxide ( N2O ) which alarmists are wont to point out have effects 10 to 60 times greater than CO2 (these estimates vary wildly) - this is misleading. While in absolute terms this might be true, the concentrations of these gasses is measured in parts per billion, a thousandth of the parts per million that CO2 is measured in.If the effects of CO2 are barely measurable, the effect of these other gasses is so microscopic they can be ignored (again IR saturation of water vapour & CO2 diminishes their "effectiveness".).However alarmists are quick to add anything (no matter how flimsy) to bolster their case and of course it sits well with the vegetarians and vegan alarmists who want to foist their lifestyle onto the rest us by claiming our consumption of meat is harming the planet - cattle produce a lot of Methane but to put that into perspective it's about the same as Methane generated by termites.  Look up Sir Paul McCartney's "Less Meat, Less Heat" initiative.  The IPCC has admitted that it does not understand as much as 80% of the physics affecting global warming (I suspect the figure is much higher) but still maintain that their modeling is nonetheless robust. Do not lose sight of the fact that all of the alarm is based on output from these models. These models cannot really be considered hard science, they have been tweaked and manipulated to reflect the prejudices of the model builders. 

As Michael Crichton said at a global warming debate in New York "Would you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge if its engineers admitted they did not understand 80% of the physics that held it up !" (The skeptics came out clear winners.) Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate  Global warming may well be happening but deluding yourself that we are the cause and that all we need is the political willpower to reduce carbon emissions is simply pandering to the very real human "anal compulsive" desire to be in control of the situation.The carbon controls envisioned will have very real and probably crippling effects on economies and lifestyles. People will almost certainly die from the direct and indirect consequences of such policies. One thing is certain none of these policies will permit us to control the climate. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels (This article by George Monibot a GW alarmist - on starvation of the poor by biofuels). I would go so far as to suggest that attempts at "Carbon Capture" could be downright dangerous. I am particularly concerned at attempts to genetically engineer carbon sequestration "bugs" - unlike mechanical and chemical means these cannot be turned off and if allowed to escape from the lab could conceivably kill us all. 

Some scientists are advocating the deliberate injection of  SO2 in the atmosphere to react with water vapour to create "shiny" H2SO4 droplets which (like Venus' atmosphere) will increase the Earth's albedo and reflect off more energy.Wonderful !They are going to reintroduce a pollutant we have been at pains to eliminate for decades - in case you didn't get it  H2SO4 is Sulphuric Acid - they want to reintroduce acid rain - which you may remember from the 70's was going to lead us into an ice age, destroy our forests and agriculture and lead to the downfall of man.This is a very bad idea.  How soon we forget. Unfortunately this sort of thing has become quite entrepreneurial with various ideas being tried and touted as means of absorbing carbon in an attempt to claim the Carbon Credits. Can you imagine the environmental damage that is going to be caused by every money grabbing company, inventor and crackpot trying to be paid for eliminating carbon. Some petrochemical companies have even taken to deliberately over-producing "Greenhouse Gases" such as CFC-23 as an "unintentional" "by-product" and then destroy them in order to claim the carbon credits - If you think this an outlandish claim simply check out the Reuters article via the link below. Since 2005 over 46% of all carbon credits are being garnered in this way by just 19 companies http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE65C1FZ20100613   

It makes considerable economic (but not environmental) sense - Oh-Dear the laws of unintended consequence strike again ! Visit the following link to an article by Michelle Chan of Friends of the Earth (definitely pro-AGW) on 10 ways to "Game" the carbon trading market - complete with actual examples. http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/10WaystoGametheCarbonMarkets_Web.pdf Friends of the Earth estimate that 90% of all carbon trading is fraudulent (and you are paying for it in carbon taxation).  Consider also the recent dumping of 30 tonnes of Iron Sulphate in the Southern Ocean in an attempt to stimulate phytoplankton production. A repeat attempt was sensibly blocked by environmentalists.  Even the IPCC has called for a ban on what it calls "unscientific" experiments to reduce Carbon. You need to think this through very carefully - do you really want your tax dollars or energy and carbon taxes to be spent removing a gas from the atmosphere that is absolutely essential to life ! This is very dangerous ground.  "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is in any case not proof of its cause ! Consider This Hypothetical Suggestion - Imagine the opposite was happening - the world is cooling (which it is currently doing) and it looks like we are heading for an ice age. Someone then suggests that CO2 is an emitter of IR (which it is) and serves to block and re-radiate into space incoming IR (which it does) and is responsible for the cooling.The exact same "overwhelming evidence" information and data (only now showing a cooling) would be trotted out to support this hypothesis. (This is exactly what happened in the 70's - if you look at the temperature data for that period {later}, you can see why.)This would be the case and again the causality would have to be simply asserted - not proven - as indeed it is impossible to prove CO2 causality via the physics. Any correlation is meaningless without proof of causality.If we were to cherry pick the data from 1998 onwards we could easily use the climate models to predict CO2 induced Global Cooling ! (see graphics later) Some scientists are already doing so (and blaming CO2 for it) - so hold on to your hats for the next big scare - "An Ice-age Cometh" - just like they predicted in the 70's - Yeah Right !. The following link, links to dozens of papers predicting global cooling / ice age in the 70's http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html They were wrong then, they are wrong now ! Think about this very carefully - what has happened has happened - it does not per se constitute "proof" of cause. The cause is in all cases simply asserted. Melting ice etc. etc. are symptoms of elevated temperatures but says absolutely nothing about the cause. 

It is to me extremely curious that the alarmists keep pointing to the prior (to 1998) relationship between CO2 and temperature as "hard evidence" whilst ignoring previous high temperatures that man clearly had no hand in. This alone casts serious doubt on the assertion of man's causality. Even the circular reasoning of the AGW hypothesis that the warming is caused by mans emissions and the warming is therefore the proof (a self proving hypothesis ?) - fails on the basis of prior hot periods. 

 The IPCC made a policy decision at its founding meeting that it would rely on computer models to produce projections. Indeed there can be no "data" for the year 2100 so there is little sinister in this except the IPCC also made a policy decision to ignore historical inferences - this has allowed them to ignore the natural cyclicality of the system. None of the IPCC models account for this historical cyclicality. The IPCC has misrepresented the relationship between CO2 and temperatures by presenting the "correlation" graphic in reverse. Whilst technically correct (as the dates are also in reverse order with the most recent date to the left) it looks like CO2 precedes temperature when the reality is the other way around. What happens today cannot influence the climate yesterday. And that's just for starters. The IPCC have falsified their data by Cherry picking and use of biased algorithms and have in many cases invented their own version of physics. Now I don't know about you but once people start misrepresenting, fabricating and falsifying their "evidence" and resort to mud slinging against their detractors (invariably attacking the man not the data) then I become deeply suspicious. I particularly dislike the notion that we can cut fast and loose with science when it is in pursuit of a "good cause" - who determines what is a "good cause" and why ? There are so many factual errors, misrepresentations, unsupported assertions, selective data sets and appeals to emotion in the IPCC reports and particularly Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that both lack scientific credence. To be sure there is a mountain of rubbish on both sides of the issue - I side with hard observational science (see

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/  )which clearly shows it not to be happening as opposed to emotion, politics and vested interests. Just so we understand each other - "hard science" is the creation of testable hypotheses which are compared to the real world to check their veracity. The Global Warming hypothesis and its models simply fail this testing process. (Unless of course you remove or ignore all the evidence that runs counter to the hypothesis [the true inconvenient truths] - the moment you do that in science you can prove almost anything.) Remember it is always the exception that proves the rule and there are a large number of inconveniently large exceptions. I will promise you this - I will reverse my position the moment I am presented with convincing and largely uncontested evidence (all current evidence is seriously contested). - As things stand I am now sure (not certain) that history will eventually show the sun to be the principal culprit. In science I am a skeptic, we are usually wrong, we only ever have the current best explanation.   "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties, and unverified belief the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas H Huxley  I have yet to see any proponent of AGW or any article on AGW that even alludes to the possibility that they might be wrong. All uncertainties are simply glossed over or ignored completely - all speculation is asserted as fact - this isn't Science. All scientific theories must be falsifiable - this is a firm scientific principal which means there are no "holy cows".Example: If you ask a scientist "what would I need to show you to convince you your theory is wrong ?" and the scientist replies "Nothing you could show me would convince me otherwise". This person had slipped from science and proof into religion and dogma. Thus any person claiming climate science is a settled science is not a scientist but an acolyte of the climate change religion.There is no such thing as a "settled science" its a contradiction in terms of the very definition of science. "Science has questions that may never be answered, religion has answers that may never be questioned !" - Anon. Cherry picking supportive data is a cardinal sin for a scientist - but the norm for a politician.Politicised science is without exception bogus, politics and Science are by their nature mutually exclusive - the moment they are conflated - expect trouble. 

Dr. John R. Christy Director, Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville (In his testimony to Congress against the EPA's CO2 regulations.)

""The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the hypothesis stands. This is not science."

Nobel prize wining physicist Richard Feynman had this to say on objective science (not global warming per-se ):-  " ... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."  Far too many scientists today are simply presenting the supportive data whilst ignoring contrary data often because of financial pressure by their employers, sponsors or politicians.  I have sent this letter to a number of pro-AGW academics - not one has come back and argued the science. They have all responded with comments on consensus etc. which means they have not researched the topic themselves but instead are relying in a belief in the "scientific method" and "peer review". Generally this faith is well founded but on this topic emotionalism can be clearly seen to be overriding sound academic practice. There is plenty of peer reviewed anti-AGW literature - so who is right ?

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml

We have now reached the unhappy point where you can blame almost anything on Global Warming without any supportive data or arguments and it will be accepted as fact.

Virtually every day an article appears in almost every newspaper (sometimes two or three) which mentions climate change as a real and unchallengeable certainty and either implicitly or explicitly man's culpability - this adds to the propaganda barrage we are being constantly subjected to with objective counter arguments invariably conspicuous by their absence.

 "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as the truth." "That propaganda is good which leads to success…It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success."Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment, National Socialist Party of Germany, 1933  Perform a web search and see for yourself the number of things being "caused" by global warming - without any proof whatsoever being cited. No matter how ridiculous it does add to the overall clamour of propaganda which tends to sway lay-person opinion.

 Google "caused by global warming" (including the quotation marks) to get 6800000 hits. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm this site will take you to a list of nearly 800 things "caused" by global warming with a web link to the article on each of them. (From Acne to Zoonotic organisms.) Its ridiculous !  One common thread that I have noticed is this: Skeptics (such as myself) normally start from the Physics which just simply doesn't support the AGW position and we of course look for data to support our position.Alarmists start from the position that man is damaging the planet and our emissions must be driving climate change. They then look for supportive data for this hypothesis. Both of these approaches are fundamentally bad scientific practice (Mia Culpa) - its called "Confirmation Bias".This Schadenfreude by persons wanting man to be the culprit in this scenario is palpable - and yes man has an awful lot to answer for in terms of his environmental impact - but certainly not for the production of plant food (CO2).This is academic self-flagellation. CO2  Is Not A Pollutant  In the USA the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has declared CO2  a pollutant - subject to its regulatory purview (it was forced to do so because of legal action by an environmental group) - I guess we will all have to stop breathing. (You exhale CO2 at 40000 ppm.) A motion is before Congress to overturn this. This sets a dangerous precedent as the EPA can now deny any new business application on the grounds of its CO2 emissions or contribution thereto simply because of its demand for energy. This means all businesses and is likely to become a brake on the US economy and is unlikely to be tolerated for long. The EPA has stated it will only target outputs of 15000 tonnes P.A. or higher - which is contrary to its mandate which specifies 250 Tonnes - a lawsuit is already underway to force them to go by their mandate - 250 tonnes would include your average big rig truck, steakhouse or large office block. This is going to be hugely problematical. CO2 is not a poison so if they set the toxicity level (still requires a finding by the EPA) at human exhalation then there is no problem anywhere - if they set it at 200ppm the whole of USA (and your breath) is non-compliant. Its a mess. Ironically it may force them to do their own research and probably find that CO2 is not a problem - it may well come to pass that the lawsuit by the environmentalists may ultimately have the unintended consequence of getting the EPA to declare the CO2 hypothesis unfounded.EPA Chairman Lisa Jackson (who pushed this ruling through) resigned after it was discovered the EPA was using illegal closed / private (not transparent to public scrutiny as per the EPA's charter) communication channels for the discussion of inconvenient data. The EPA has been hiding inconvenient data. CO2  is not a pollutant - it is absolutely essential to life - without it we die. There are not enough recoverable fossil fuel reserves on planet Earth to drive CO2 to "Toxic" levels.   The EPA has not done its own research, has relied entirely on the findings of the IPCC and has suppressed the report of its own scientists Alan Carlin & John Davidson who submitted a skeptical report which was deliberately excluded from its findings. The EPA have also (unsuccessfully) tried to muzzle these scientists.

Unfortunately the EPA has a history of being economical with the truth in order to get its own way (see later comments by Michael Crighton.)The EPA has also instructed its scientists not to spend any time on exploring the IPCC data for errors - this after its own scientists expressed dismay & surprise at being able to poke fundamental "holes" in the IPCC case very easily and quickly.The EPA is currently being attacked by both sides of the divide with numerous lawsuits.15 U.S. states have filed suit against the EPA and Texas has simply refused to comply.  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/06/30/meet-alan-carlin-epa-s-inconvenient-voice http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5422-carlin-epa-climate-report-qmore-religion-than-scienceq http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3648 http://www.statesman.com/news/local/state-hammers-epa-on-science-of-global-warming-920778.html Many of the EPA's more egregious regulations have come about as a result of "Sue & Settle" lawsuits by the environmentalists.The US Chamber of Commerce has researched the practice and concluded that such Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of Environmental Protection Agency’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years.” Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. 

http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/17/epa-greens-play-a-hazy-sue-and-settle-game/  THE ROLE OF THE IPCC IN THIS FARCE The International Panel on Climate Change is a body of the United NationsIt is not a scientific body; it is a political body.The IPCC has become a self-appointed world authority on climate change, it has become insular in its demeanor and circular in its logic. The curious role of scientists in the IPCC :- "The IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations goals.""It is the IPCC’s job to “orchestrate the views of scientists""Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." "When governments accept IPCC reports, they acknowledge their legitimacy.""The IPCC produces regular reports which immediately become standard works of reference." - John Houghton first IPCC Chairman

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm Back in the late 70's & early 80's there was a very real concern amongst scientists that man's emissions might be causing long term climate change. In 1988 James Hansen, a climatologist with NASA, told Congress that temperature would rise 0.35°C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1°C), and that sea levels would rise several feet by 2100 (one inch by 2000). This so alarmed Congress that this can be

seen as a trigger for the creation of the IPCC - and it was proven to be false or at the very least, highly exaggerated.At the time Hansen was asked by the Congressional Committee about the R² tests on his data - he sidestepped the issue and ultimately never answered the question - the reason being that his R² results (tests of significance) were practically zero - which statistically means they were without merit.Hansen, in spite of his predictions being so spectacularly wrong, is now running around saying his predictions were not dire enough and the situation is even worse than he predicted - the man is delusional.  Incidentally the hearings were stage managed - the hearing was deliberately scheduled for the statistically hottest day of the year (and it was) and large windows in the Capitol building were left open and the air-conditioning was switched off shortly before the hearing. Since when is showmanship a feature of sober science ? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65 Hansen was described by his then NASA boss (climatologist Joanne Simpson) as a "loose cannon". For every climatologist there is an equal and opposite climatologist - see Dr. Roy Spencer also a former NASA climatologist who is solidly behind the natural climate change model. During her retirement speech Simpson said that since she was now no longer obligated to toe the official NASA (political) policy she could now state that she was skeptical of the claims of man's influence on climate. Roy Spencer quit NASA after NASA attempted to "muzzle" him since his science did not accord with policy dictum. http://www.drroyspencer.com/  The UN set up the International Panel On Climate Change to study Global Warming.One of its founding members and current global warming skeptic Lord Monkton was Margaret Thatcher's science adviser who advised that the UK government spend money researching the problem. Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to speak out about the dangers of global warming - because of the advice from Lord Monkton. (Margaret Thatcher however, also had a political agenda - she had just come through the coal miner strike and did not trust them or the Middle East for Britain's energy security and hoped to engender wider support for more nuclear power stations. To illustrate the cynisism, in her book "Statecraft" in the chapter entitled "Hot Air & Global Warming" she rubbishes the notion and refers to it as the "doomsters favourite subject".) The IPCC was set up at the behest of the British government which pays for the IPCC bill to this day - largely through Monkton's efforts.  - Monkton was concerned at that stage but has subsequently come to the conclusion that there is little validity in the AGW case.  Monkton (one of the panel's fellow Nobel Laureate's) is still on the committee and remains a thorn in their side. 

See "Apocalypse Cancelled" by  Christopher Monkton   http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/apocalypse_cancelled.pdf In order to make the AGW case, a number of propositions need to be proven, the following is an excerpt from "Apocalypse Cancelled" by Lord Monkton  Proposition                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Conclusion 1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed.                            False2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional.             Very unlikely3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism.                      False4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured.                      Unlikely5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.                    Not proven6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good.                              Very unlikely7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.                           Unlikely8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference.                   Very unlikely9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective.                         Very unlikely10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course.                          False Monkton recently stood before the UN and announced that if we can't prove anything we should have the courage to do nothing. Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference  The abuse heaped on Lord Monkton in various bloggs is really quite appalling. Had he stayed on the side of the alarmists he would instead be their poster boy hero - their cynicism is boundless. The IPCC's first draft report on climate change to the UN stated that anthropomorphically induced forcing (i.e. man-induced) could not be discerned against the background "noise" of the data. Exact wording of the first draft (excerpts) below :- The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes ." Note: The IPCC panel of scientists was unable to attribute even part, not even a small part, of climate change to the activities of man. This was repeated no fewer than 5 times in the report. When the paper was actually published this had been changed without the permission of the IPCC panel by some low level "Green" bureaucrats at the UN in collusion with a couple of dissatisfied alarmists (Santer et al) on the panel. This is what replaced the foregoing comments in the final report presented to the UN :- "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." 

This was and still   is a blatant lie !  

In fact the entire final draft was concocted "after the scientists had gone home" and reads entirely opposite to the "consensus" of the scientists on the panel at the time.If you consider the wording, the original draft has all the overtones of scientific expression whereas its replacement does not. It is not written the way a scientist would write - it was written by a bureaucrat. Santer admits to deleting all the contrary authors comments in order to "tidy up" the report and make it more "coherent". He clearly seems to think he did nothing wrong. Equally clearly he simply edited the report to conform to his set of prejudices (this is neither science or consensus.). http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report/ This caused a cry of outrage in the scientific community at the time - particularly those authors who did not believe in global warming - the nett result was that many of the anti-GW scientists resigned from the panel (which in hindsight was a mistake) - all future replacements were made strictly from the "believer" camp. A large number of reports, technical papers and data sets which disprove or seriously undermine the IPCC model have been submitted to the IPCC by a number of eminent scientists. All of which have been ignored. As you can imagine similar reports supporting GW - no matter how flimsy, biased, contrived etc are accepted where it suits their hypothesis. Clearly then anything emanating from the IPCC cannot be trusted.  Consider this......... by an IPCC Lead Author"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."The late Stephen Schneider, Author "The Genesis Strategy"2007 IPCC reportStephen Schneider had subsequently defended his position stating that the "exaggeration is justifiable" - in science ?????Stephen Schneider was one of those scientists who predicted a coming ice age in the 70's. In an unguarded moment one of the IPCC panel (Prof. J. Overpeck - quoted by Prof. D. Deming.) commented "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" which appeared in the first IPCC report but was magically missing from subsequent reports.During the Medieval Warm Period (approx 900-1300 AD) the Danes colonised Greenland - named thus because it was green then - the remains of Viking settlements can be found in the permafrost - even the Vikings would not be mad enough to farm permafrost. The Romans were growing red wine grapes near what is now the Scottish border, a Chinese fleet could find no Northern ice, the fabled Northwestern Passage probably has its origins in this period. etc. etc. Apocryphal - Yes - but supported by many temperature series data sets either ignored or smoothed out by the IPCC's dubious algorithms. The Medieval Warm Period has been called this for hundreds of years, warmists are now referring to it as the Medieval Temperature Anomaly - thereby insinuating that it might just be an error.

The IPCC has similarly "smoothed out" the little ice age that occurred between 1400-1600 - this was accomplished by using algorithms that accentuated favourable data sets - Cherry picking yet again. The little ice age coincided with the "Maunder minimum" in solar activity (yet more proof the Sun is the major driving force). "Ice Fairs" were held annually on the frozen Thames for decades something which has not happened since this period - the extreme cold of the "Little Ice Age" was responsible for millions of deaths. The reasons for the IPCC attempting to trivialise both these "anomalies" are twofold; their models would not retroactively predict (hindcast) either of these events (thereby demonstrating them as useless) plus they need the "Hockey Stick" temperature series to demonstrate sudden change wrought by man in order to validate their alarmism.These two periods constitute anomalies unexplained by all the computer models - since they can't fix the models they have simply "disappeared" the data. Visit the following site for more information on the unscientific IPCC. http://www.undeceivingourselves.com/I-ipcc.htm Many of the IPCC's models and algorithms have been roundly criticised by statisticians & physicists. Over 90% of the 51 US State Climatologists polled said they had no confidence in the IPCC models and over 70% did not believe in AGW. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225:green-armstrong-and-soon&catid=21:menu-pages The IPCC has listed five criteria for models to be useful in climate scenarios. The first criteria is that they be "consistent with global projections" this actually means that they must show a temperature rise of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. If you can't see this means that no other outcome is possible from the IPCC then you are scientifically blind. Any model projecting the current cooling (and is therefore accurate) would be rejected. At present the IPCC is at a loss to explain the current cooling (1999-2012) although Hansen, Mann & Trenberth et al have been saying things like "Natural climate variability is overwhelming the warming effect".How they can say this with a straight face amazes me - by implication natural climate variability could just as easily have been the cause of the prior warming. Have they even deigned to consider this a possibility ? Of course not ! Their model is the only truth, the way and the light ! Any contrary data is simply wrong !Natural climate variability is simply a catch all phrase meaning "something with far greater significance than we (falsely) ascribe to CO2 is suppressing the warming and we haven't a clue what that might be - but our models are still 'robust'." It would be funny if they weren't serious.  http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4089&linkbox=true&position=15  At the IPCC’s 33rd session in May 2011 the decision was taken that all scientific draft papers produced by the IPCC should remain secret until publication – this so the mutual back slapping society of the IPCC can continue to produce bad science in support of

their political agenda without having to trouble itself with wearisome criticism of its science prior to publication.In other words, no matter how bad the science it will be presented fait-accomplis without comment from anyone other than IPCC selected referees.Personally I doubt that this will have the desired effect of suppressing skepticism as inconvenient secrets have and will continue to leak out. AR5 (due for publication in September 2013) was leaked by several of its authors and reviewers in breach of the limits of disclosure agreement they signed with the IPCC - thankfully these people have a conscience. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/ The unfortunate outcome of this will be that those authors and reviewers will be permanently deselected from any future IPCC process - once again a self serving Darwinian censorship process that continually weeds out those that won't get with the program and results in an ultimate group-think outcome. Refer to the following 104 comments on the (as yet unpublished) AR5 report by Lord Monkton. http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/AR5_Expert_Review_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_20121216.pdf

If you read it will see how biased and dishonest the report is, particularly in its use of nebulous assertions without any reference to supportive science. I have not bothered to include all the claims of "transparency" by the IPCC - but the truth is the IPCC is transparent only to card carrying believers - it is closed to dissent. Dissenting scientists have been booed from the stage and in the case of Lord Monkton he was physically removed by security on the grounds that his speech differed from his outline - so his accreditation was summarily cancelled (mid-speech) and security removed him from the stage.So if your outline says you wish to speak against "policy" you won't be accredited - I'm sorry but science just is not conducted this way - its farcical. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/23/the-ipcc-goes-closed-and-opaque.html Some of the things that the IPCC does are, from a scientific perspective, bizarre - for example Pachuri publicly boasted some time before the release of AR4 (well before the comments closing date, so the report could not have been finalised - could it ?) that its contents would shock the world into action and referred to several referenced articles that had not yet been published - and in some cases had not in fact yet been written - this indicates to me that the game is "rigged" (or the IPCC is clairvoyant).The IPCC & the EPA are guilty of committing to a conclusion before the evidence is in (the EPA was found guilty of this by a US Supreme Court on the DDT & second hand smoke issues) - worse the supporting "evidence" appears to be being manufactured to support the report. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/22/this-is-called-cheating-part-2/ 

Similarly the 90% confidence limit determined by a show of hands (at the plenary sessions by the 195 political appointees) for AR4 is politics not mathematics. Chapter headings for the reports are determined in advance by the 195 political appointees at the plenary sessions - thereafter the scientists are unable to have them changed or removed. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/10/cogs-in-the-climate-machine/ Once again this is politics not science. I am led to believe that the plenary session has already voted a 99% confidence level for AR5 long before the science is in. The game is rigged !  Bogus Science by the IPCC The IPCC does not conduct any actual science but instead compile from available published research papers. Many of the scientists on the panel are also the authors of such papers and there is a great deal of selectivity apparent in what is and is not selected - it would also appear that non peer reviewed work is selected when it suits them (about 30% of AR4 - 5587 references of 18531 references quoted were not from peer reviewed sources) .Note: The IPCC has guidelines for the use of non-peer reviewed literature which it ducks behind when questioned on this issue - however for the most part the most common statement from the IPCC is that it uses only "peer reviewed" literature. This is what Pachuri said on this issue:-  “we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that.”  - I'm afraid this statement is simply not  true. Over half of recently published papers are unsupportive of the IPCC's claims - but such papers are universally ignored by the panel.Very few contra-indicated papers have made it into the IPCC's drafts and those that did were deleted before publication. One reviewer for AR5 (due for release September 2013) broke his confidentiality agreement by publishing the draft on line, claimed he did so for fear that the contra-indicated evidence of solar forcing might be dropped from the report - inconvenient truths have a habit of vanishing from IPCC reports (like the Medieval Warm Period & the Little Ice Age data etc.). There is evidence that some of the IPCC's lead authors are "manufacturing" evidence by including papers or reserving space in the drafts for papers they have not yet written or had published. Dr Matt Ridley has referred to the IPCC process as "replacing evidence based policy making with policy based evidence making".   

A number of IPCC claims are just simply false or politically motivated disinformation: The claims that the "noughties" (2000 onwards) were the hottest on record are false - however the press release was strategically timed for presentation immediately prior to Copenhagen - not enough time for it to be refuted before the conference - yet another example of propaganda and deceit.

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2705

A similar claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in just 35 years - with a press release - timed nicely to propagandise the Copenhagen talks - was so far off beam that the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has had to publicly and humiliatingly apologise. (They took the worst case data of glacial retreat by cherry picking the glacier and the data - 121 years apart - and then "accidentally" divided by 21 instead of 121).Pachauri initially flatly refused to apologise but he was forced to do so after the author admitted that the entire report was politically inspired and that he got his unrefereed "data" from a National Geographic article which had been authored by an activist / activist group and was not "science" per se. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html This after Pachauri personally and publicly dismissed a report by Indian scientists (charged with monitoring the glaciers) showing no abnormal trends in the glaciers as "Voodoo Science". Other scientists had queried Pachauri before Copenhagen on this issue. (One scientist noted that even if the Earth warmed 10°C it would still take hundreds of years for these glaciers to melt.) Pachauri's response - "I was distracted.".I'm sorry Dr. Pachauri, but taking the worst case scenario from already biased data and "accidentally" multiplying it by 5 is "Voodoo Science."Glaciers in the Karakoram area of the Himalayas are actually extending. Indian Scientists Debunk UN Glacier Retreat Claim    

  The IPCC has effectively changed history because it does not fit their hypothesis.Science is about honesty yet here we have blatant & patent admissions of dishonesty for what can only be political objectives. The most recent IPCC (fourth assessment) scenario is based on the four major forcings: solar (S), volcanic (V), anthropogenic (A) and natural internal variability (N). There are three possible scenarios for each forcing denoted as I (more than present), II (same as present) and III (less than present). In its fourth assessment report the IPCC looked at only NI-VI-SI scenarios with variations in A. Scenarios with SIII, VII or NIII would all counteract A and contribute to cooling. In other words the most recent IPCC assessment is based on a worst case scenario on all counts - probabilistically this is unreasonable - furthermore cooling is a more realistic current outlook - which also happens to fit the facts as well !As mentioned earlier, any model that only uses mans inputs as variables can only find correlation between those variables and climate - no other outcome is possible.It should by now be patently obvious that no other outcome will be permitted or even considered by the IPCC.

Consider the IPCC graphic above which represents what they consider to be reliable temperature series and decide for yourself if the gray "hockey stick" line (generated by the IPCC model) is likely to be correct even by these series ? (In the earlier IPCC report this line is shown smoothly descending down to about minus 1 @ 800 AD - the "handle" of the hockey stick - removed from this graph because the handle was obviously wrong (but nonetheless what the model predicts) - similarly the ridiculously steep end of the stick has been moderated from earlier publications - it is undoubtedly alarmist. Note also the virtual absence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in these data sets. Statisticians found that the IPCC model produced this "hockey stick" even when fed with randomly generated "noise". This conclusively proves the model to be biased. (This due to a process known as "short centering" which accentuates hockey stick shaped data, additionally data sets that promoted AGW predictions were given selectively higher weighting - as much as 390 times as much as non-supportive data - patently fraudulent.) The IPCC have now quietly dropped the "hockey stick" graph as its marquee. It was pure B.S. from the getgo. http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-03c.htm#hockey What is of concern is the black line from land based temperature recordings - but these have been heavily contaminated by the "Urban Heat Island" effect by 1 to 2 degrees which is going to be severely problematic given the scale. This is evidenced by the lack of concurrence between land and satellite based readings - but we only have satellite data from 1978 onwards. Alarmists dismiss this contamination as insignificant and show graphics with and without the effect, but on graphs scaled from minus 20 to plus 50 - this makes the effect look small - try to visually discern 0.5C° on a graphic scaled from -20 to +50 it doesn't look like much but could be of severe influence to the graphic above (which has a total range of less than 2°) - the data would become a smudge on a largely empty graph.. The black line is also partially the result of cherry picking once again (some "low" datasets dismissed as unreliable or unrepresentative - listed as "quarantined data" in the IPCC report.) and is probably overstated on top of the

contamination. Believe it or not, the longest running scientific record of temperatures from Warsaw is "quarantined" - you can guess why - it does not support the Global Warming Hypothesis. Visit the following site for a discussion of the accuracy and interpretation of temperature records. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420 For more information on how the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect has corrupted the data from surface weather stations visit :- http://www.surfacestations.org The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI). Data from stations that have been in the same location for 100 years with no environmental change are not showing a significant upward trend.Stations that were originally in a field but are now surrounded by an asphalt parking area, air-conditioning units etc. clearly show upward trends.The warming reported from such data has nothing to do with climate (other than the local changes due to urbanisation) over 80% of US weather stations are contaminated in this way. Over 50% of US weather stations do not meet the NOAA minimum requirements for siting.

  http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-i/Visit this site for pictures of typically corrupted stations.

Similar problems have been found in Europe, Russia, Australia and China (Michael Mann & Chen Hui published a joint paper finding no significant UHI effect on Chinese data - immediately thereafter Chen Hui published a paper on his own finding a significant UHI effect in Chinese data - go figure ???? what on earth is going on ?) Contrary papers abound but seldom by the same author. I suspect he was never in agreement with Mann and his rebuttal suggests he was steam-rollered by Mann who once again had manipulated the data to suit his prejudice - nothing new in that.It has since been pointed out that some of the "high" datasets are from Chinese weather stations that in fact have never existed. I suspect these were creations of Mann's algorithms for the creation of data for locations where there "should" be a weather station (see later Prof. Steig & Mann's creation of non-existent weather stations in Antarctica). A large number of weather stations were in fact moved closer to urban areas when they were updated to telemetric reporting and needed to be moved nearer to a source of electrical power. Similarly a large number of stations were "eliminated" over time for convenience (satellites taking over from these) - these were typically at remote locations with little UHI influence (thus further biasing the available data). As many as 4500 of the original 6000 US weather stations have been eliminated over time - since these were mostly in "remote" colder or non-UHI affected areas the skewing of the "average" temperature towards "hot" has been considerable. This is borne out by the disparity between satellite and terrestrial data. Examination of the before and after distributions also shows that the more Northerly (US) stations (and therefore cooler) have been disproportionately "culled" - nothing sinister in that but again it has skewed the before and after data towards "hot". (repeat) "It is beyond coincidence that all these errors should be in the same direction."Dr. Matt Ridley - Angus Millar lecture to the Royal Society - Edinburgh - Nov 1st 2011 http://stevejanke.com/archives/297345.php http://www.prisonplanet.com/guide-to-the-climate-scandals.html

 Many stations are now being moved back or away from urbanisation by converting to solar panel supply. This process is certainly going to produce some seriously squirrelly data that needs to be analysed on a case by case basis and not just by simple arbitrary adjustments of the averaged data.In many cases the adjustments were made on the basis of "reliable" stations within a 1000km radius. The bulk of these "reliable" stations are in fact airports which have almost without exception been subject to major growth in buildings, tarmac and traffic. The only reliable thing about them is they are well maintained and accurate - but unfortunately contaminated by UHI.Airport weather stations are typically placed close to (or between) large tarmac runways to give reliable temperature information to pilots about the air temperature over the runway. This is exactly where they need to be to provide reliable data to pilots but is eminently unsuitable for climate data. You can easily see how this is done - A pro AGW researcher is faced with two temperature records: 1) The airport which supports his hypothesis or 2) a field practically next door which doesn't. Clearly the data from the field must be wrong and needs to be adjusted upwards or ignored completely because the airport is "more reliable". (Plus the 1000km radius permits a very large number of stations to pick from - again its very easy to cherry pick without being obvious - particularly with respect to Artic data.) Researchers have found that at almost every adjustment made by the warmists they have biased their results towards or preferentially chosen the "warm" side. So much so that non-UHI data has effectively been brought into line with UHI affected data. In some cases changing a 0.06°C/century rise to a 6°C/century rise. A number of academic articles have demonstrated that researchers invariably err towards their hypothesis when making judgment calls or interpretive judgments of the raw data. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/326/7404/1453 Here is an example of "confirmation bias" from the New Zealand climate agency - NIWA who  adjusted the raw data (for the last 100 years) and now present it as the raw data. Claiming the adjustments were scientifically valid - but adjusting the early part of the 20th century down and the latter part up smacks of confirmation bias and runs contrary to Urban Heat Island effects. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/ Fortunately there are other hardcopy records and they have been caught with their pants down. Presenting adjusted data as raw data is fraud, and worse, it is perpetrated by those charged with keeping the record straight. 

Consider the following illustrative graphic :- 

 This plots the (illustrative but probable, data) average anomaly from 6000 weather stations arranged from lowest to highest  -  as expected this process produces a straight line with some extremes - this goes linearly from -2 to +2 with an average anomaly of Zero.The data at the extremes (the first and last 100) deviate from linearity and would statistically be considered as probably inaccurate and deleted (makes no difference to the average if you remove both upper and lower anomalies).But look what happens if we remove the lowest 4500 bits of data (which is what has happened more or less to the US data) but still include the 100 upper anomalous data bits - we now have a range of data from +1 to +4 with an average of +1.55°C when the actual is 0°C.Even with the upper 100 removed we would still be projecting a false 1.5°C rise from the 1500 remaining stations vs the temperature records from the prior 6000 stations. "Hey Presto" (since this happened over the last 30 years since the introduction of satellites) we can "confidently" predict a 5°C per century rise due to man's influence - and the reality is Zip, Zilch, Nada, Nothing, Niechievo !  

It is just too easy to fudge the data accidentally, unintentionally or deliberately. 

The "overwhelming evidence" of warming comes only from (the remaining) ground level terrestrial weather stations. Weather stations on mountain tops, weather balloon, remote area & satellite data show no such trend - other than about 0.1°C up to 1999 - this is not significant and easily explained by solar variance. (That is for global average not just North America or Northern Hemisphere terrestrial which are higher and obviously selectively quoted.) 

The above graphics shows how NOAA have misinterpreted temperature data from 1979-2008. 

Top right shows the temperature anomaly as indicated by those stations unaffected by UHI.Bottom right those stations affected by UHIand Left the NOAA "adjusted" data which is miraculously even higher ! The NOAA position is almost exactly double the real values. And just in case you accuse me of cherry picking, the compliant station data aligns rather well with the satellite data - something the non-compliant and "adjusted" values don't do. A curious implication of this is that NOAA is giving greater credence to stations that do not comply with its own rules on siting & compliance - almost to the extent of completely reversing credibility with compliance - how strange ! The notion of "average" is also problematical - the satellite data provides continuously variable data from which an average can be determined. The terrestrial data (mostly) only reports maximum and minimum - any statistician will tell you that "average" is not the number between those extremes (that is median) - but this is what has been IPCC accepted practice as far as terrestrial data is concerned. Perhaps not a bad approximation but not when you are trying to make a case for decimal points of a degree of change. Any statistician worth his salt would reject this.For the more mathematically inclined, temperature data is non-scalar and one has to be very careful when manipulating such data (example 100°C=212°F but you cannot simply multiply by 2 to get 200°C=424°F which is false - the normal rules of math's cannot be simply applied. Averaging temperature is fraught with problems.)  There are some 600 data sets & proxy reconstructions compiled for temperature time series available to researchers - its very easy to cherry pick without being obvious. None of the series included in the earlier IPCC graphic are remotely representative of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. The satellite data originally showed a slight cooling trend (Shock - Horror) - errors were uncovered (caused by a decayed orbit) and after recalibration it now shows a slight warming trend (0.1°C prior to 1999). However the significant lack of correlation between ground and satellite data still exists - this lack of correlation is widely held to be the result of Urban Heat Island contamination. It is also extremely curious that whenever NASA talks about global warming it uses the terrestrial data (over which it has no quality control) whilst ignoring its own satellite data which does not support the global warming hypothesis. How very strange for a "Space Agency". 

The above graphic shows a sudden increase in temperature - unsupported by satellite data - following the reduction in the number of terrestrial  measuring stations. This suggests that UHI is significant.

The Satellite Data

 This data from two independent satellites which agree with each other. Below the land based data which does not agree.

 You will note that even this data does not support the "Hockey Stick" graphic propounded by Michael Mann, IPCC & CRU. 

You might also note the absolute absence of correlation between the CO2 data (grey line) and temperature other than they are both upwardly sloped - this is extremely weak correlation.Note also the absolutely regular seasonal variation in the CO2  data which as pointed out earlier has rock solid correlation with sea temperature. The warmists are now claiming the satellite data and remote area temperature data are "unreliable" and should be ignored. In other words - any data that does not support the hypothesis should be ignored ??? On that basis you can prove anything. Preposterous ! No one is seriously disputing that warming has occurred (prior to 1999) - the argument is about the "real" value and whether or not man is responsible and whether or not we can (and for that matter want to) do something about it. (This is the crux of the entire issue.) All IPCC published data stops at 2000 - simply because the data beyond 2000 is unsupportive of their hypothesis. I'm sure they are hoping it is just an anomaly they can explain away later but a more than decade long anomaly will require some fancy footwork. Michael Mann (the inventor of the "Hockey Stick") has steadfastly refused to release his raw data or algorithms - statisticians (S. McIntyre & R. McKitrick et al) painstakingly reverse engineered the algorithm from available data. Subsequently the Mann hockey stick graph has been shown  to be in error vis :- 

]Michael Mann faces increasing ridicule (see humorous video)http://www.nocapandtrade.com/michael-mann-controversy/and risks going down in history as the creator of "Mann-made Warming" the greatest scientific hoax since the Piltdown man. Mann has recently published a book defending his work and attacking his detractors. This too has been shot full of holes in short order. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/a-detailed-review-of-manns-book-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars-as-it-relates-to-the-wegman-report-to-congress/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/shollenbergers-technical-review-of-manns-recent-book/#more-58877 Both the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit (CRU at Anglia University) have been the prime movers behind the temperature series propounded by the alarmists. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/ Both of these institutions have been remarkably reticent to produce their "raw" data or the algorithms used to calculate the hockey stick. They have refused to comply with freedom of information act requests and have claimed to have "lost" some of the original raw data.According to the "climategate" leaked e-mails they have even destroyed data after the FOI request which is criminal.The CRU has been found guilty under FOI legislation of failing to provide information. The director of the CRU - Phil Jones - has been suspended. The US has suspended CRU funding pending investigation.Michael Mann sums up his pro-IPCC position in a damning email to Jones and Schmidt: "As we all know, this [climate debate] isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations".   

 One comment: "Why should we provide you (skeptics) with over 25 years worth of our work so that you can use it to prove us wrong !" - shows an alarming lack of faith in their

data or the scientific method - the whole purpose of peer review is to try and prove them wrong - if the data and algorithms are sound they should stand up to critical review.The CRU reluctantly released raw data for their "hockey stick" to statistician Steve McIntyre (Data used by Keith Briffa,  Tim Osborn  and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years –  the infamous hockey stick graph.)

Mr. McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology  have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium.   When the entire data set is used, Mr. McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely.

In short, it didn't stand up to critical review and the hockey stick only exists if you cherry pick supportive data.

 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

The (now suspended) head of the CRU Phil Jones dropped a bombshell during a BBC interview when he admitted that their data showed no significant warming for the last 15 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

The CRU and Phil Jones managed to avoid parliamentary censure (the science itself was not examined) but were criticized for their non-transparent approach.The UK Institute Of Physics submitted its comments to the committee which raised serious questions about the "scientific" conduct of the CRU.

The Parliamentary committee's conclusion that the CRU's practices were in line with other climate researchers is evasive and tantamount to saying that since they're all a bunch of cherry picking, agenda driven warmists then its O.K. to act in such an unscientific fashion.

A similar enquiry (whitewash ?) into the IPCC also did not examine the science and found the scientists to be jolly good fellows. I'm sure they are - the skeptics are questioning the science not their credentials or bona fides. By contrast the alarmist response to scientific queries from skeptics is to attack the scientist.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/inquiries_response.pdf

 What is clear is that scientists within the CRU & the IPCC and elsewhere have been in constant contact ensuring their predictions lined up - no big deal perhaps - but when they make the claim that global warming has been found by several independent scientific bodies  - the "independence" is false.

Benjamin Disraeli famously said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics !"

This is the IPCC temperature projection vs actual from 1980 (with 95% confidence error limits). Even its lowest error limit does not look at all reasonable. 

  This is the projection vs actual from 2002 onwards which is just plain silly. 

 Note: We are now back down to the temperature of 1980. If you still conclude that the IPCC model is correct and that we should spend Trillions of dollars fixing this (and it won't fix it anyway !) - what more can I say ! As mentioned earlier we could use this last graphic to show that we are "hurtling" towards the next ice age (don't get alarmed, I don't think we are.) 

Experts in this field have been highly critical of the IPCC's forecasting techniques which violate 80% of the rules of accurate forecasting.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6451/Team-of-Scientists-Counter-US-Govt-Report-Global-warming-alarm-will-prove-false--Climate-fears-based-on-faulty-forecasting-procedureshttp://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf Visit this website for a *.pdf version of Dr Happs' response to Prof. Chub's testimony to the Australian Senate. http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_09/HappsVsChubb.pdf In addition to his critique he lists numerous examples of distortion by the IPCC, peer reviewed literature ignored by the IPCC and scientists listed a part of the "consensus - when in fact they are not. Plus a whole slew of anti-AGW comments by numerous respected scientists in the field of climatology. 

 Personally I believe that a slight upward trend which ended in 1999 has been conclusively demonstrated and well within millennial variance but I can't see any valid mechanism where man is responsible for anything but an insignificant portion of this. The temperature series which started all this alarmism was in fact the product of a mere handful of individuals. The leaked "climategate" e-mails show there to have been a 30 year period where these individuals have collaborated and colluded on presenting the data in the most favourable light to the AGW cause. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/ Here's a prediction from a climate model that considers various multi-decadal climate functions by Dr Nicola Scafetta - adjunct professor of physics at Duke university. Dr. Scafetta specialises in non-linear statistical systems. 

Even Dr. Scafetta himself points out that this may eventually turn out to be yet another flawed model - it does seem to track well with historic and current data - this model does not meet the IPCC's first criterion (must show an increase of 1.5 - 4.5 C° for a doubling of CO2 - so the IPCC will not even consider it.) but in my opinion is a considerably more probable depiction of reality than the IPCC's flight of fancy - the green area "searchlight" projecting what appear to be ridiculous figures. Obviously if you only consider the data from 1970 to 2000 you might consider the IPCC projection to be realistic but not if you look at the big picture.Note: This projection does not consider CO2 as an input, only climate variables such as the sun, ocean currents etc. If even moderately correct (and its way better than any of the current IPCC models) it demonstrates that climate change has little or nothing to do with CO2. Perhaps more to the point, this model only uses well known measurable variables. The model has of course been crafted through a process of non-linear regressive techniques to "fit" the facts - but future predictions are testable and based on known measurable variants - not an ad-hoc collection of guesstimates. SO HOW MUCH WILL TEMPERATURES INCREACE ? Well that very much depends on which scientist / scientific study / science that you believe, as the following graphic demonstrates. This is a projection for the temperature increase we might expect to see (ignoring all other possible climactic variance up or down) if man's CO2 production continues unchecked.

 If you believe Miskolczi - who has determined that the Infra-Red optical depth of the atmosphere is determined by water vapour and turbulence of that water vapour and that CO2 is not a factor then you would predict 0°C (as he does) for any increase in CO2.

And so on through papers by Idso, Spencer & Braswell and Lidsen & Choi all remain below 1°C.Even the alarmist James Hansen only predicted 1.2C° (although he is currently predicting more). Every prediction beyond that up to the IPCC's AR4 projection (Red) get there only be invoking "forcing" mechanisms and as pointed out previously the IPCC's forcing factor of X3 is demonstrably wrong. No scientist has yet been brave enough to suggest that  CO2 might cause cooling (other than as an ultimate outcome of warming) although its negative 0.5 forcing factor might indeed suggest such a possibility. In the light of current research & data the high end scenarios look more and more implausible. We are now in 2013 and Miskoczi's prediction is the one closest to reality The truth is there is absolutely no certainty in any of this science ! (Believe it or not the IPCC's AR4 claim of 90% certainty was determined by a show of hands - man how's that for hard science ? I believe they will be touting 99% certainty in AR5 - the noisy data precludes such mathematical accuracy so I presume they'll be voting on it again). Anyone claiming that the science is in and is incontrovertible is either ignorant of the debate or is flat out lying. THE CONSENSUS MYTH The IPCC represents the opinions of about 52 scientists but is touted as a "consensus of scientists" (and even they don't all agree - see skeptical comments by current and former IPCC scientists - later) these 52 scientists are "backed up" by a further 2500 scientists within their parent organisations. Many of those scientists do not support their colleagues opinion and object to their claimed support. Note also the Darwinian selection / deselection process that favours the appointment of "believers" and the resignation of "doubting Thomas'". It is difficult to attach credence to this 52 man consensus when the number of scientific signatories to the "Oregon Petition" exceeds 31000 ! (see next). The IPCC quote every scientist who has ever contributed to the process as part of the consensus - including those who completely disagreed with the IPCC's findings or as reviewers rejected the IPCC's technical papers. One scientist had his name removed from the list only after threatening legal action. A number of "studies" have been conducted to further this myth - via questionnaires that even a dyed in the wool skeptic such as myself would come out as part of the consensus. Questions such as "Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ?", "Do you believe man's CO2 emissions are contributing to global CO2 levels ?", "Do you believe the climate is warming up ?" "Do you believe additional CO2 will cause warming ?" etc. etc. I would have to answer yes to - but that still does not make me part of the consensus. This is an example of a "scientific survey" being crafted to get the answer they were looking for in the fist place.

In addition the bulk of persons responding are either unqualified to answer or have not researched the topic and are answering with their heart rather than their head.

These are invariably poorly constructed and conducted studies which violate all standard practice with respect to scientific conduct of such studies to eliminate bias in the process - just the opposite in fact the studies are contrived to "mine" that bias. <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/#more-67663> Follow the above link for how a two question -10000 questionnaire survey produced an overwhelming consensus from only 75 of 3000 respondents - or see the same thing in an article from Forbes magazine by Larry Bell. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/ In spite of the fact that the survey was in the first instance sent to a pre-selected group of pro-AGW (biased selection) and the questions should have elicited a "yes" response (even from me) it didn't quite work out that way and I presume some of the respondents - knowing a horribly biased survey when they saw one - chose to respond negatively.So they "filtered" the results - finally settling on the filter "climate scientists who have had papers published in the last 2 years" which reduced the 3000 respondents to only 75 of which (surprisingly) 2 had nonetheless answered "No !" In brief they crafted a survey that should have produced the result they were looking for - when it did not do so they tortured the data until it did - outrageous !This patently ridiculous result was then published as "peer reviewed science" by the American Geophysical Union whilst conveniently ignoring the tortuous machinations of the methodology which to put it bluntly should have been recognised as bogus. 

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002

So much for consensus ! Any attempt to bolster any scientific argument with claims of "consensus" is simply fatuous - science is never about counting votes - as far as I am concerned, playing the consensus card is a ploy of desperation by a scientist. It is only ever employed where the science is weak - you will never hear a scientist say "the consensus of opinion is that the speed of light is 300000 km/sec" (299792.458 km/sec if you want to be pedantic about it) See similar comments by Michael Crighton later.  As a final kicker the warmists are now complaining that concensus is hampering taking action and want sweeping powers to railroad their solutions. How curious, consensus is fine - where it suits them. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/shocker-from-uea-consensus-based-decision-stifles-progress/http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2012/November/climate-negotiations-united-nationshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/us-climate-talks-idUSBRE8AH0EK20121118  

 The Text Of The "Oregon Petition" We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. This was signed by over 14000 scientists at the time of Kyoto - it now stands at 31478 - of which some 9029 are PhD's and 3803 PhD's in climatology, atmospheric or earth sciences. (After the last - 2007 - audit to eliminate duplicates & frauds.)(Yes I do know that there are currently duplicate names on the list as well as names of prominent alarmists that should not be there. This is probably the work of other mischievous alarmists trying to discredit the petition. Nothing new in that.) The Oregon Petition is now called the "Petition Project" as the University of Oregon does not want its name used in this regard - clearly scared of funding fallout - this is an appalling response by an academic institution.http://www.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20040517/001626.html There is no "consensus" regardless of what Al Gore and the IPCC tell you. http://www.petitionproject.org Alarmists simply dismiss this petition as a "hoax" - its not - visit the site ! Alarmists adopt dismissive tactics or the simple gain saying of any contrary position or data - dismissive tactics are the norm - please check out any simple dismissal - it is invariably false - then ask yourself WHY ? Example: In one article a researcher asserted "I can't think of a single climatologist except maybe Lintzen who does not believe in Global Warming."A quick web search revealed hundreds of skeptical climatologists (probably the majority of climatologists).  http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/ The Oregon petition is not the only petition - the Heidelberg Appeal (against the use of fraudulent science in the AGW case and is not per se anti AGW) has been signed by over 4000 scientists including 62 Nobel Laureates and sent to heads of state around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal 

Over 100 scientists including Nobel Laureates as well as current & former IPCC scientists wrote an open letter to President Obama pointing out that his stance on global warming was simply not true. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3133 The main petitions are: The Oregon Petition (31,000 accredited scientists), The Heidelberg Appeal (4000 signatures including 62 Nobel prizewinners), The Manhattan Declaration (600 research climatologists), The Petition to the United Nations (100 geoscientists - appended at the very end of this article), Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 climate experts), The Leipzig Declaration (100 geoscientists), The Statement from Atmospheric Scientists (50), Petition to the German Chancellor (200 German scientists), Statement from the American Physical Society (150 physical scientists), Petition to President Obama (100 leading climate researchers), Letter to NASA by 49 former NASA astronauts, engineers & scientists, UN Climate Scientists speak out on Global Warming (700, many previously involved with the IPCC). All are critical of the notion of man-made global warming, and all of them (with signatures and accreditations) are accessible via Google.http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf CALLS FOR THE DISBANDING OF THE IPCC. Many scientists are now calling for the IPCC to be disbanded on the grounds that it is a political body masquerading in the guise of a scientific one. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html The principal complaint is that it is under the thumb of a political organisation that has demonstrated censorship of contrary opinions and that the IPCC has itself become very insular in its approach to the subject and circular in its application of logic.Its selection process for both eminent persons and data is self serving and simply fuels the prophecy.I suspect the IPCC has become a law unto itself when it makes comments like "The IPCC has spoken ! warming of the climate system is unequivocal and its very likely due to human activities." - Kevin TrenberthHe has been roundly critisised for the bombastic "The IPCC has spoken" not to mention the use of "unequivocal" and "likely" in the same breath.http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3308/Ignorant-Skeptics-UN-Scientist-Prof-Trenberth-says-only-poorly-informed-scientists-disagree-with-UN--Appeals-to-Authority-The-IPCC-has-spoken Strangely enough I don't think the IPCC should be disbanded - We need to know what is really happening without all the hype, alarmism, political point scoring, vested interests and emotionalism.I would suggest it be reconstituted and the eminent persons selected must above all else be dispassionate and not care much either way.The reconstituted panel must cover a broad range of science applicable to the problem, particularly with respect to the physics and the applied statistics which have thus far been sorely abused. A scientific ethics panel has also been mooted.The entire process should be subject to rigorous peer review by a further panel of dispassionate scientists. The United Nations may not interfere in this process in any manner or form.

Any scientist who expresses a pro or anti AGW position should not be selected. Similarly politicians are by definition excluded. The IPCC charter also needs to be amended - from the start it assumed a widespread human influence on climate. Its charter is "To assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." Such a charter makes it unlikely that the other factors influencing climate change will be taken into account. The IPCC brief needs it to consider all causes and aspects of climate change - not just man's impact.  The latest news from the IPCC is that its most recent report is being sent to a panel of independent reviewers (whatever that might mean) in order to regain some of its lost credibility. The IPCC have a nasty habit of cherry picking sympathetic reviewers and even switching reviewers if they don't get favourable reviews. (see later Prof. Niels Axel Mörner who was by-passed as a reviewer when he rejected the IPCC sea level report.)The IPCC is coming under increasing scrutiny by more and more skeptical scientists. As a result of this we are beginning to see all sorts of dubious practices being unearthed :-Such as obtaining data from advocacy groups like Greenpeace without actually checking it.Getting data from popular publications without actually checking it. Coming to conclusions on incomplete research such as failure to compare results of elevated CO2 against normal levels. Using the results of studies which have not been through peer review. Coming to conclusions unsupported by the study etc. etc.All of which have passed rigorous "quality control" according to IPCC Chairman Pachauri but nonetheless many glaring errors have been uncovered. Recently a "cross-examination" of global warming science was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics. This cross-examination found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.” See The Financial Post comments which includes a link to the 79-page document "which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/ How To Lie With Statistics. This was the title of a book by Darrel Huff in 1954 - still in print and available from Amazon.com. It is as valid today as it was then. Examples of lying with statistics in the AGW arguments :- 1) Ignoring baselines - example: warmists claim that vehicle emissions are 24% of the carbon footprint - this is true in that it is 24% of man's Carbon footprint but only 0.7% of the total carbon flux - see what I mean - they selectively pick the denominator that "strengthens" their case.  2) Using "bottomless" graphs to exaggerate slopes (trends) as well as cherry-picking data to achieve the same (typically selecting start and finish dates to show greatest change as opposed to a "big picture" approach). 

3) Showing graphs in reverse order to obscure cause and effect relationships. 4) Constructing questionnaires that get the result you were looking for. etc. etc. Statistics is an exact science but is frequently abused by persons trying to make a point. Is the Earth warming ?  Almost certainly, is it about to go into catastrophic warming ? - one can never dismiss a "possibility" but highly unlikely. Are we about to turn a corner ? - likely given the current solar minimum.Unfortunately a statistical case could be made for any of these scenarios as temperature series alone don't prove the AGW argument - and as you can see from the forgoing graphics you can manipulate the data to almost any outcome.  This process of data manipulation has been referred to as "Torturing the data until it confesses to what you want to hear." Temperature series in any case are not in any way proof that man is responsible. Not shown - the Earth has been through 6 warming cycles in the last 100 000 years - man's CO2 emissions had nothing to do with the previous cycles. These prior cycles were probably due to solar variance, the evidence suggests the prior warming (and recent cooling) is due to solar variance. Certainly the current warming coincides with the periodicity of prior warmings - approximately every 20000 years which in turn coincides with the suns cyclicality. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html Problem - We cannot control solar variance and relative humidity (which are responsible for 99.9% of the "problem") - so let's ignore it and look instead at something we can control. This is simply the logic of the Interventionist Anal Compulsive personality. Can We Do Anything About it ? Here I might agree that reducing CO2 emissions would be a good idea if it would help moderate the warming - the problem is it will make practically no difference at all and the cost will be catastrophic. (I said I "might agree" - there is plenty of historical data and scientific opinion that would suggest higher temperatures bring more beneficial effects than harmful effects - past history associates great wealth with warmer periods and severe hardship and depravation with cold periods.) The cost won't be "high" simply in monetary terms - it will require the large scale destruction of industry, lifestyle and ultimately the health and welfare of mankind.The alarmists are talking of going back to CO2 emission levels that last existed in the days of the Wild West when human life expectancy was about 40 years and half your children died before puberty.I'm afraid the "cure" is far more costly than the "disease" even by alarmist predictions - and the "disease" appears to be psychosomatic. A UN study found that to change to a "Green" or "Low Carbon" economy globally  would cost U$572 Trillion - get your head around that number - its equivalent to 10 years of World GDP over the next 100 years - World War II is estimated to have cost U$58 Trillion in today's money. 

http://www.envoinfo.com/index.php/2011/02/uns-green-economy-may-cost-2-5-trillion-a-year/ Really ! are we facing a disaster of that magnitude ? 10X the cost of WWII - ridiculous.  The U.N. think tank - DARA - has predicted that that 100 million people are going to die and world GDP is going to collapse 3.5% by 2030 as a result of climate change.I don't know how they came up with these figures but the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas might indeed bring this about and possibly worse.As Dr Matt Ridley has stated "the proposed measures are akin to applying a tourniquet around your neck for a nosebleed !" Talk of "Controlling the climate increase to 2°C" is fanciful in the extreme - we have no real ability whatsoever to influence climate.The climate is going to do just as it pleases. We could of course go back to the Bronze Age and maybe knock 0.02 - 0.1°C off the climate - but this would kill off 90+% of humanity - I don't think this is a viable solution. Do you really want to be taxed into poverty (both financially & energy impoverished) to support what is little more than a "Green" fetish ? By most calculations even if the optimistic (and economically suicidal) Copenhagen reductions were implemented the nett reduction in temperature by CO2 reduction would be 0.02°C over 50 years - almost immeasurably small. http://sppiblog.org/news/lord-monckton-replies-to-australias-canting-ranting-prime-minister#more-438 One scientist wistfully commented (within the accuracy required) "we don't know what the current temperature is, we know even less about what it was and we know absolutely nothing about what it "should" be !" I'M NOT A "DENIALIST" or "CONSPIRACY THEORETIST" ! Just to set the record straight at this point - I am not a denialist - I am simply skeptical of the alarmist claims made by the warmists. My diatribe up until now has been firmly in the skeptical camp. However I accept that increased atmospheric CO2 will cause increased temperatures but the figures I agree with show a 0.35 to 0.7 C° rise for doubling of atmospheric CO2  (For 95% confidence limits) with 0.5°C being the most likely - ie if we quadrupled the atmospheric CO2 (and that's about as far as out fossil fuel reserves can take us anyway.) we would most like see a rise of only 1°C this is neither alarming nor Earth shattering - the most likely consequences would be more beneficial than harmful.  http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#more-10322  The Global Warming Conspiracy Theory :-  There are a number of conspiracy theories about Global Warming. The most prevalent is the excuse to use this to achieve non-democratic world governance.This is understandable since French Prime Minister Jaques Chirac applauded the Kyoto Accord as "the first step towards global governance" - Al Gore has similarly and frequently referred to the need for global governance.I find that prospect chilling.

Conspiracy theories make great reading and the connect the dots approach can be quite convincing.But personally I don't buy it. I will not believe that thousands of scientists and journalists are involved in some sort of sinister plot. However I do believe they are wrong and are misguided by their righteous love of the planet into accepting a plausible hypothesis which does not stand close scrutiny.They have made the mistake of falling in love with a hypothesis - something any scientist will tell you is an unscientific thing to do. "It’s not a conspiracy, just a toxic interaction of science, government funding, and media reporting." - Dr. David Evans. Read the following by Dr. Evans in which he postulates that the "regulating class" have grown tired of democracy and are using this mythical Global Warming as a Trojan Horse to obtain undemocratic power over our lives and of course our taxes. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climate_change_and_freedom.pdf With the denouement and almost universal collapse of communism as a political ideology, a great many leftist activists have transferred their energies and underlying political persuasions to the "Green" movement and are continuing to tout this discredited philosophy disguised within an environmental agenda.These people are referred to as "Watermelon" activists - "Green" on the outside but distinctly "Red" at their core.

Consider the following quotes - they alarm me ! IPCC Deputy President Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically." - Judi Bari - Earth First !

(Just for the record, communism's track record on environmental issues was absolutely appalling no capitalist ever dumped used nuclear reactors at sea as the USSR did.) "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse, isn't it our responsibility to bring that about ?" - Maurice Strong - Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan - Secretary General - United Nations (this said at the meeting that founded the IPCC.) Calling skeptics "Conspiracy Theorists" (along with "denialists" and "flat earthers") is simply mud slinging by the warmists.There was no conspiracy when the Earth was held to be flat and the centre of the universe, there was no conspiracy when doctors held that stomach ulcers were caused by acid, neither was there a conspiracy when the bulk of geologists would not believe in continental drift - etc. etc. - they were simply wrong en-masse - this has happened time and again - refer to Michael Crighton's speech later - the list of consensus errors is lengthy. Even in the absence of a conspiracy however -  it would be naïve not to assume that personal agendas of acquiring wealth, prestige or power play no part in this.There is an awful lot of wealth, prestige & power to be made from this cause.Consider the fortunes of Al Gore and Maurice Strong - prime movers in the alarmist camp - just for starters.So for some it is an ethical crusade, for others it is about making money, for others it is about political power and some have of course managed to reconcile some or all of the foregoing. Consider the marketing antics of most companies trying to climb on the "Green" bandwagon - we even have "Green" credit cards - the other day I was offered "Green" insurance ! - Yeah - Right ! http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/04/kermit-coal-book-reveals-how-world-s-top-brands-greenwash-public Bear in mind another possibility - many world leaders consider themselves to be held to ransom by oil exporting countries - if the carbon credit scheme came to its ultimate conclusion then oil producers would be unable to sell a drop without (their customer) first obtaining the necessary "carbon credit" to offset it. Wow ! - Those persons controlling the (imaginary) carbon credits now control all the oil and coal in the world.At the very least the "economic rent" value of the carbon credit might simply be extracted from the fuel value and placed into the pockets of those controlling the Carbon credits. http://www.crisisbydesign.com/blog/tag/carbon-credits-are-a-vicious-scam/ The looming state of George Orwell's 1984 draws closer. The U.K. has established a "Carbon Currency" department within the treasury and David Milliband (environment minister) is proposing a "Carbon Credit Card" for all citizens - eventually to apply worldwide - but Britain & Europe must lead this program. All citizens of the world will be issued with equal credits every year. You and your Humvee or some swamp dwelling Bangladeshi will get the same credit.You will have to swipe this card for all purchases of fuel, food, transportation, utilities etc. Run out and you must buy more carbon credits (or starve ?).

Of course said Bangladeshi is also free to sell his unused credits - this is nothing less than a socialist grab of your assets to distribute to poorer nations on the pretext of non-existent global warming.An unintended (or perhaps intended) result of this would be to "lock" evolving states into an energy impoverished regime. By restricting the flow of credits and/or the carbon footprint values of your purchases, the "price" can be manipulated to almost any value. "Controlling Carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control Carbon you control life !"- Prof. Richard Lindzen - Prof Climatology Massechusetts Institute of Technology (during testimony to the Senate.) Those "men in the middle" handling the credits will of course control all energy production and effectively hi-jack OPEC etc.Figure Al Gore & Maurice Strong to feature prominently here. Once established they will be free to squeeze you as hard as they please. Am I being paranoid or has the world gone mad ? http://www.green-agenda.com/carboncurrency.html    (Follow the links within) Global Warming is a politically driven, power & money grabbing HOAX ! - Like I said - it didn't start out that way - but it has certainly become one. It goes without saying that there are astronomically large economic and political forces at work here that have nothing whatsoever to do with the science of the subject. - Indeed these forces are likely to brush aside any inconvenient scientific facts with propaganda and fear mongering - I fear they are succeeding.

Former President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the grave danger of political interference in academic matters in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf   Some Recent Examples of Junk Science :-  The Antarctic has been getting colder and the mass of ice actually increasing - this is a source of great embarrassment to the GW extremists - they need to prove the opposite is true (such phenomena indicates solar warming not CO2 forced warming - see later). So it comes as no surprise that the most recent "scientific" evaluation of temperature records by Prof. Steig in Antarctica shows a recent warming trend - This is most strange

since only a few of the limited number of station data show this (principally at the Antarctic peninsula - being affected by the warming ocean - not the atmosphere).What they did was "invent" a whole slew of missing stations in locations where they thought they "should" be and calculate those imaginary data sets via an algorithm (which has still to be revealed).  Lo and behold the expanded data sets now show a "slight" warming - something they did not show before manipulation. Pull the other leg its got bells on it. Note once again the use of a computer model to turn non-supportive data into supportive data. Ta-Daaaa ! "Its science Jim but not as we know it !" If you dig further into this piece of anti-science you will find the same authors (Michael Mann et al) who were behind the now infamous and thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" temperature series produced by the IPCC. (The series with the missing history.) One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for NASA, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."  This criticism coming from GW believers !But you can bet your bottom dollar this study will be trotted out ad-nauseum by global warming pundits (and it has). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html Examples like this are legion (refer to the earlier NOAA graphic where they managed to manipulate the data average higher than the maxima ?????). The most recent (ridiculous) paper on the "shrinking" polar bear without consideration for the obvious causes - polar bear populations have increased from 5000-10000 to 25000 in the last thirty years - they are therefore on average younger and smaller plus they compete with each other for food etc. etc. Biased, untruthful & alarmist. (Polar Bears continue to grow throughout their 30-40 year lifespan.) As you can imagine the "shrinking" Polar Bear was blamed on Global Warming. According to the US Wildlife and Forestry service the Polar Bears are thriving in 11 of the thirteen habitats they monitor. Polar bears are doing fine since we stopped shooting them on sight once they were declared a protected species. The GW "poster" photos of polar bears stranded on an ice floe and the Polar Bear eating a cub - "forced to cannibalism by Global Warming" are simply propaganda. The bears "stranded" on the ice floe were ±100m from shore - polar bears are known to swim up to 100km so they weren't in any danger. Polar bears have always been cannibalistic - male polar bears in particular have a nasty habit of eating other male polar bears even their own young which have to be protected from males by their mother.The near record ice extension of 2008 proved to be very hard on the polar bears.

 http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm 

Some Polar Bear experts skeptical of GW were advised to stay away from the Global Warming summit (Polar Bear workshop) in Copenhagen as "their presence would not be helpful.."As with so much to do with AGW you can find literally thousands of papers and articles which assert that the polar bears are threatened by global warming and loss of sea ice - what you won't find is any proof. The truth is a hard taskmaster. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html When a group of similar thinking people get together to discuss an issue and simultaneously exclude others of a differing opinion - then what do you suppose the outcome is going to be ??? To paraphrase Winston Churchill "Democracy is not what happens when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner". The sheep weren't even invited to vote.  Why Hasn't The USA Ratified The Kyoto Protocol ? The Kyoto protocol (where countries agreed to reduce their "greenhouse gas" emissions) was signed by Vice President Al Gore under the Clinton administration - but Bill Clinton refused to ratify it - it sat on his desk for nearly 400 days until it became someone else's problem i.e. George Bush.  (Note: In May 2004 the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto protocol has no scientific grounding at all. Russia was "blackmailed" into signing the accord otherwise it would have been denied entry into the World Trade Organisation.) http://en.rian.ru/science/20050701/40831419.html George Bush similarly "sat on it" for his entire two terms. The Democrats made much of this while conveniently ignoring the fact that Democrat Clinton did not sign the bill when he had the chance.One might have thought the first thing Barack Obama would have done was sign it. He didn't and the Koyoto protocol has since lapsed without successor.

 

Kyoto Deal Loses Four Big Nations During the 2011 G8 meeting, Russia, Japan and Canada told the other members of the group that they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, which expired at the end of 2012. The US confirmed that it would continue to remain outside of the treaty. Why has the US consistently resisted a climate change deal ? The US president has access to highly classified information from the US spy satellite network which is used to track the world's ocean surface for enemy submarines. These satellites can measure the surface of the oceans to sub-millimeter precision in order to detect the "bump" left on the surface by any submarine traveling underneath. (Software nulls out surface "noise"). Similarly they measure surface temperature anomalies which pick up the "thermal wake" left by vessels.It is believed that the data from this source shows that sea levels are not increasing, Antarctic ice mass is increasing (if anything the Pacific is 2mm lower than normal - where do you think the Antarctic ice mass came from ?), and various other forms of data which are at odds with the IPCC view on AGW. Have you ever heard the US military talking about the strategic problems of global warming as it might affect its abilities to wage war ? No. The US military does not believe in global warming but is not at liberty to say so. (A retired US Army General has written a paper on how global warming might affect American national security. A further number of retired Generals and Admirals have also expressed their opinions - clearly based on the IPCC scenarios - to leading questions by alarmists.) [ Kyoto "died" on December 31st 2012 without any replacement being agreed upon. ] So it would appear from his actions that President Obama knows better but that hasn't stopped him using the alarmism to further his reelection campaign in which he is claiming that he can control the weather (no seriously). http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17370/Obama-goes-full-witchcraft-by-telling-voters-they-can-do-something-about-droughts-and-floods-and-wildfires--Climate-Depot-Responds This is electioneering of the most vile kind - trying to scare voters into voting for you. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”                            ― HL Mencken  The US Army has officially stated that it has "no official position" on Global Warming - this after one of its scientists issued a statement that the Sun was mostly responsible and that the IPCC had "Grossly overestimated the anthropogenic effect.". The US Navy is on record as stating that global cooling is a more realistic probability  US Navy Physicist warns of crushing temperatures and global famine.http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/16/lawrence-solomon-chilling-evidence/http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/16/lawrence-solomon-chilling-evidence/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/ 

Admittedly this is speculation and not science - but it is certainly worth considering. (The US military are unlikely to release their classified information for public scientific scrutiny, all we have to go on is "leaked" information.) Recently over 600 earth scientists testified (or submitted testimony) to the US Senate on the fallaciousness of the AGW arguments, the outcome of this has been the Senate rejecting greenhouse legislation (In one case by a 95-0 margin. 95 to nil ??? how often does that happen in US politics ??) The US Senate has obviously come to the correct conclusion that it is being conned and any future anti-CO2 legislation will need to prove itself or it won't get past the Senate. This has so frustrated President Obama that he has taken to manipulating existing legislation and presidential powers to work around the legislature. Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov  - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,)   Al Gore's Work Of Fiction "An Inconvenient Truth' Al Gore submitted his work of fiction "An Inconvenient Truth" to Congress & the Senate as "science" towards determining policy. Download "5820.pdf" for a US Congressional briefing paper debunking Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" which unfortunately contains a large number of "convenient lies". The briefing paper concludes that an "An Inconvenient Truth" should not be considered for policy purposes. The briefing paper is balanced and unbiased simply pointing out where the information in "An Inconvenient Truth" is either true, false, misrepresented or exaggerated. It makes interesting reading. Al Gore - Rhythm - "the repeated application of a mathematical formula until you get the answer you are looking for" (particularly in Florida). www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf In the U.K. -  In a High Court motion to have "An Inconvenient Truth" removed from school curricula - in that the film breaches the rules relating to bias, inaccuracy or propaganda. Justice Michael Burton ruled that it could continue to be shown on condition that :- The teachers pointed out the errors - to be supplied in a guidance pack by the department - 9 fundamental errors were listed by the court but expanded to 35 by the education department. Teachers must also show the opposing view "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from Channel 4 television. That teachers present both sides of the argument in an unbiased manner. 

The Court effectively ruled An Inconvenient Truth - Propaganda. In practice the education department has stopped showing it - rather than present two sides to the issue. This after issuing the film to all schools for compulsory viewing. The damage to young minds has been done and will not be undone. British schools have now taken to showing "The Day After Tomorrow" as an example of where global warming might lead us. This is an utterly fantastical piece of escapist entertainment that has absolutely no serious foundation in science fact - its even bad science fiction - but it does scare children. The "science" of "The Day After Tomorrow" is so bad that a number of scientists have created blogs to counter it.The number of things wrong with it are too numerous to go into here but here's a few :-The film starts with them drilling ice cores from an oceanic ice shelf - these things break up every year so there is no data to be gleaned drilling there. Scientists don't drill there.Even if upper-stratospheric temperatures of -100°C came down to earth, Boyle's law changes of temperature with pressure would push this back to +1°C besides the air in the core of a storm is rising not sinking.You couldn't freeze people and helicopters as fast as depicted in the movie even if you dropped them in liquid Nitrogen. Even if the Vacuum of space came down to earth it could only lift the local ocean 32 feet - the storm surge portrayed in the movie is simply impossible.And so on................. The British government recently spent 6 million pounds on an alarming advert featuring the CO2 "bogeyman" under the bed, neighbourhoods under water and pets drowning. It scared the bejesus out of small children.It seems frightening small children is all they can do. It's pathetic.Subjecting children to propaganda is immoral, abusive and dangerous. 

 It doesn't even rhyme ! Floods, Droughts – Anything is possible – the hypothesis that anything can happen – and when it does you say “I told you so !” - is not science !

 http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1187 Better yet see the adverts flighted by the 10/10 group (10% reduction per year from 2010) in which children at school, footballers & office workers are gorily exploded for not being interested. This is not humerous - consider the same add in which Jews, gays or environmentalists were blown up - its immoral but speaks volumes for the mindset of these activists - "deniers" are clearly not worthy of life. It also points to the bias in the broadcasters who were stupid enough not to realise this.The adds were hurriedly withdrawn after a general outcry and the withdrawal of sponsors (Sony & Kyocera). http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPDXQsnkuBCM Information From The Web Below are some extracts from various items culled from the web which should provide some idea of the extent of disagreement in the field. For well referenced articles debunking Global Warming visit :- http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html   This is an excellent technical article. www.globalwarminghoax.com  A US Senate (Dept. of the Environment) blog on GW fallacies. http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm An excellent up to date source of recent references. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ http://www.friendsofscience.org Another excellent, frequently  updated source of recent references. Plus you can subscribe (free) for e-mail updates on the ongoing debate. www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Blog of Dr Roy Spencer - former NASA climatologist who keeps a running commentary on the state of the AGW debacle. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/  further narrative on the subject with questions and answers from both alarmists and skeptics. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/A very even handed look at both sides of the argument.

http://www.scienceheresy.com/.

A website dedicated to exposing pseudoscience.

www.ilovecarbondioxide.com www.nipccreport.org    The non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change - if you do nothing else visit this site.

 http://www.nzclimatescience.org/ another site by concerned scientists - links to a wealth of papers and learned opinion on the issue. The last two set up by concerned scientists - almost every claim made by the IPCC is debunked or proven to be greatly exaggerated - a wealth of reference material is available in *.pdf format from both the above sites. Yes I know the Heartland Institute which funds the NIPCC is a right wing organisation - its not as if the funding of alarmism is as pure as the driven snow - Al Gore has reputedly spent U$200M supporting his crusade - four times his receipts from an Inconvenient Truth - while investing heavily in carbon trading ventures.Examine the science not the source. Although "following the money" is never a bad idea but treat both sides equally. Incidentally US carbon credits that were trading at U$7 at ton in 2008 were down to 25c at the end of 2009 and on October 11th 2010 the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) finally closed its doors as credits fell to U$0.05c. - world markets are clearly backing out of a belief in AGW. If you bought a few million of these credits last year you would be screaming GW alarmism until you were blue in the face right now. Al Gore bought a truckload. (European carbon credits have similarly fallen from 23 Euro to 10 Euro in the same period - currently 3 Euro and falling steadily.) http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/carbon-markets-on-a-verge-of-collapse-require-immediate-rescue-by-nations-suggests-un-panel Guess what ? California has opted to float its own Carbon Exchange (PCarbX) under the State's Air Resources Board (ARB) clearly having learned nothing from the Chicago example. In a further act of economic nonsense - the credits will initially be "sold" for free - this is simply bizarre. As might be expected, organised crime has jumped onto this particular bandwagon - selling an imaginary product - say no more. It has been estimated that organised crime has already injected 5 Billion Euros worth of false credits into the system. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54S1DS20090529 The problem is so bad that the UK treasury has already withdrawn VAT from carbon credits. Additionally the difference between markets has led to some traders making a fortune by arbitrage. Again this non-generated wealth is paid for directly and indirectly via carbon taxation. Caveat: There are only two sources of tax: You or Me ! As far as stock markets go, the Renewable Energy Index (RENIXX) has fallen 90% since its halcyon days of 2007 - world markets are clearly backing away from renewables - which is hardly surprising as they don't make any economic sense other than via massive government subsidy agreements - which governments worldwide have been reneging on - investment in renewables is being viewed as increacingly "toxic". Green Investing: So Much Promise, So Little ReturnThe Wall Street Journal’s sixth annual crony capitalist conference “ECO:nomics – Creating Environmental Capital” was rather downbeat. The WSJ reports that large parts of green-tech investment look like the torched and salted fields left behind by Roman

conquerors: barren, lifeless. Joseph Dear, investment chief for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System complained that investing in clean energy has to be more than just "a noble way to lose money." He was referring to Calpers’ fund “devoted to clean energy and technology,” which started in 2007 with $460 million and has an annualized return of minus 9.7% to date.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578378653907957178.htmlhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2013/03/27/wall-street-journals-crony-capitalist-conference-turns-sour/

With the recent instability of world currencies, there has been talk of using Carbon as the basis for currency (as opposed to Gold for instance) - this is as idiotic as the Dutch Tulip bulb bubble.  Recently Australia has been quietly backing away from its CO2 commitments - ostensibly blaming the economy - I can't help but think that the fact that one of their principal scientists has reversed his position has something to do with it ........ No smoking hot spot Dr. David Evans | July 18, 2008  

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions

cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP (Australian Labour Party) is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

The Australian News.com For a complete report from Dr. Evans outlining the corrupt climate science visit the following weblink for a 47 page *.pdf file. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.pdf New Zealand & Canada have similarly started to quietly back out of their commitments. After effectively losing the last election the Australian Labour Party under Julia Gilliard has reneged on its promise not to introduce carbon taxation as they were forced to do as part of the deal it brokered with the Greens in order to remain in power. I suspect they will pay for this deceit come next election.

 http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1257193471.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/canada-fiercely-opposes-proposal-to-extend-kyoto/article1398083/SEA LEVELS RISING - THINK AGAIN Firstly melting floating ice does almost nothing to sea level. Ice floats because it expands as it freezes, becoming less dense - it floats on the displaced mass of water - when the ice melts back to water it merely replaces the mass it was previously displacing.True - the floating ice is "fresh" at 1000kg per cubic meter (as water) and salt water is 1028kg per cubic meter so there is a slight increase in volume. Also true - above 4°C the water starts to expand - its coefficient of expansion at 15°C is 0.0038 per °C (not a constant - varies slightly with temperature - 15°C chosen as a nominal sea temperature for illustration). Also true the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth and oceans (caused by its spin) tend to accentuate the increase in equatorial regions. Having said all that the combined effect is relatively tiny.   http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html So all the floating ice shelves and the Artic ice cap can melt and it will make about 35 millimetre’s difference to sea level. (estimates vary from 35mm to 100mm - 35mm being the most common estimate) Only grounded ice such as the Antarctic, the Greenland ice cap, glaciers and other forms of grounded ice will cause major increases in sea levels if they melt (The Antarctic & Greenland Ice caps accounting for 99% of this.). The loss of the ice shelves does cause acceleration in the movement of the glaciers behind them so are still cause for some concern. However its worth considering that the ice shelves have been receding since the end of the last ice age. Alarmists like to extrapolate increased glacier velocities into the future and predict dire consequences, however glaciers are ultimately driven by snowfall. The loss of the damming ice shelf coupled with melting will cause massive initial increases in velocity which can obviously not be sustained. If you extrapolated your first gear pull away acceleration of your car just one year into the future you would obviously reach lightspeed  -  obviously ??? - really ???. Beware the non-linear relationship.The bulk of all glaciers lie well above the frost line, their terminal edges may melt and "slump" from the loss of damming ice shelves and warmer temperatures but they are not going to slide wholesale into the sea.Even if this unlikely scenario came to pass the sea would rise only 0.5m.If atmospheric CO2 increases the environmental lapse rate, the frost line will be lower if anything, not higher. Solar warming causes increased precipitation which will also drive higher glacial velocities and actually increase glacial mass.Not all glaciers are retreating some South American Glaciers (and elsewhere) are extending. There are over 200 000 glaciers on the Earth and we have data on 70 of them - precisely because they are retreating.In the current academic environment try to get funding for a research program for extending glaciers and see how far you get - yet another example of this self fuelling hysteria. The alarmists always seem to be able to have their cake and eat it without criticism - when a glacier is retreating it is proof of global warming. When a glacier is extending

then its increased velocity is proof of global warming. When a glacier is extending but its rate of acceleration is diminishing then this too is proof of global warming as would be increasing acceleration (exact opposites being claimed from the same cause abound). See what I mean ? the hypothesis that "anything can happen and probably will" is neither informative or science. Anyone who takes the data from 70 glaciers which were selected because they were retreating. And then uses those statistics to infer that ALL glaciers are retreating - doesn't know the first thing about the application of statistics or is wilfully ignoring (which is more likely) some cardinal rules on selection. Is the sea rising ? This is a difficult question and cannot simply be measured by banging a measuring stick in the shoreline somewhere - there is no way of accurately knowing if that piece of the Earth's crust is raising or sinking (particularly its history). Additionally the data is so "noisy" that is has been suggested that over 100000 years worth of readings would be required to resolve to an accuracy of 1mm by this method. However there is a simple and exceedingly accurate test......measure the speed of the Earth's rotation. If all the land borne and floating ice was to melt, sea levels would rise by 60-70m depending on which estimates you use. This motion of mass from the relatively slow speed polar regions to a more even distribution biased towards the oblate equatorial regions requires the Earth to slow down in order to conserve its angular momentum - a straightforward law of physics.This is much like a spinning figure skater raising her arms outwards to decrease her rate of spin.The raised sea level (or rather the redistributed polar region ice mass) would cause the Earth to slow down increasing the length of the day.This is slightly offset by an increase in speed  required to offset the motion of mass from a higher to a lower elevation. Ice sublimating from Kilimanjaro would speed up the Earth's rotation. The amount of high level - near equatorial ice is so negligible that this can be safely ignored.The sub-sea landslip that caused the Eastern Tsunami shortened the Earth day by 2.68 millionths of a second (the mass moved lower and the Earth sped up). This may not seem like much especially since the Earth slows down naturally by about 15 millionths of a second per year. However this does show how accurately we are capable of measuring this variable. It has been calculated that a melt of sufficient land borne ice resulting in a 20m sea level rise would lengthen the Earth day by 0.67 seconds. 

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/IceCaps.HTM

However alarmists are stating that sea levels have risen 100mm in the last decade alone (based on biased data-set selection yet again) - this would have lengthened the day by about 3 thousandths of a second - it just simply hasn't happened. From the above calculations it should also be obvious that had the sea risen 100mm ALL the floating ice would be melted - again it simply hasn't happened. (Where else would all that water have come from ? The floating ice would be the first to melt.) Sea levels estimated from the sidereal (star time = astronomical time) rotation of the earth show slight sea level rises up to about 1978 thereafter no discernable trend. Having said that the TOPEX satellite data shows a sea level increase of about 50mm in

the last 20 years with the rate of rise slowing down towards levelling off over the most recent data (and even a slight reduction but its too soon to be certain of that) - this data does not correlate with either CO2 or temperature data. This also does not correlate with the sidereal data or ice loss data which suggest that orbital errors (such as occurred with the satellite temperature records) may also be occurring - I tend to believe the sidereal data as the most "solid" as the data is not subject to numerous correctional parameters. (In the case of the temperature satellite series, it did not produce what they were looking for so they calibrated the hell out of it until it did. The sea level results are what they wanted to see so no one is going to spend a great deal of time trying to find out otherwise. I am not suggesting either is wrong but pointing out that by this process AGW favourable data is more likely than non-favourable due to a bias in attitude and beliefs of many scientists.) Sea levels have been rising slowly since we started emerging from the last ice age (which we are not yet out of), no reasonable interpretation of the data can bring us anywhere near to the alarmist predictions. The break-up of the Ross ice shelf may seem alarming but it happens every year. The fact is that the total mass of ice at the South Pole actually increased (as measured by satellites topographically) - which of course was hijacked by the global warming alarmists as yet further proof of Climate Change. Although here they are actually correct but because of the Sun not CO2 as they claim - see later.The ice shelves around Antarctica break up and reform seasonally in a rotating pattern driven by polar ocean currents.Professor Syun-Ichi-Akasofu…Director of International Arctic Research Centre says there is nothing untoward in the behaviour of the ice sheets "Polar ice caps are always expanding and contracting". I would strongly suggest you watch the two linked videos of the seasonal cycling of the Artic and Antarctic ice sheets which is a continuous time lapse from 1978 to 2009 of the images from the NSDIC satellite. Not some of the non-continuous selectively assembled time lapse series so breathlessly presented by the alarmists as "compelling proof".Next time you hear a news report which announces that a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island has just broken off the Ross Ice Shelf, you would do well to remember that that sort of thing happens every year and is not unusual. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8SGs_gnfk For the Artic Time lapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvrjX7AP-8 For the Antarctic time lapse. You will see no such "compelling proof". 

 There are several photos of Russian, Royal Navy and American submarines surfaced in clear water at the North pole over the years). 

 This is the USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaced in clear water at the North Pole 17th March 1959 If - as appears to be the case - the sun is (or rather was) heating the world's oceans, we can expect the floating ice to recede further as the warming cycle continues. Reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect whatsoever on this process. Al Gore & George Monibot have got into a competitive game of constantly upping the other's dire predictions of projected sea level rise - originally starting at about 3m they are now currently "confidently" predicting a 25m (82 ft) rise in the next 100 years. And they say its already happening !There is not a shred of evidence to support this. This would cause the Earth to slow down 2 microseconds per day, every day for the next 100 years - almost equivalent to the time impact of the Eastern Tsunami - every day - believe me someone would notice - the Earth would have to slow down 50 times faster than normal - its not happening !Astronomers measure to Femtoseconds, Two Microseconds is two-million Femtoseconds. Al Gore is even predicting an "iceless" world in the not too distant future.Such "scientific" pronouncements (by a lawyer) are simply hysteria and deserve no further comment. Al Gore frequently puts his foot in his mouth on scientific issues (such as the "world's icecaps have been stable for billions of years" and "the core of the Earth is millions of degrees"). However since he refuses to be drawn into debates, he by and large gets away with such gaffes. Even allowing for the solar warming, loss of floating ice as well as some grounded ice we are unlikely to see a sea level rise of more than 100mm in the next 100 years - we can live with that (even this has a 95% confidence error of 100mm - for the non-statistically minded it means that the outcome will be somewhere between 0 to 200mm with only a 2.5% chance that it will be less than zero or more than 200mm). Even this modest estimate requires the Earth to slow down at double its normal rate - even this is not currently discernable against the background "noise" but may become more

noticeable in time. It is also thought that the increasing ice mass at the Antarctic is for now ameliorating the loss of floating ice. Just for reference: according to the US NavyIf all floating ice (including the North Pole) melted the sea would rise by 35mmIf all the glaciers, grounded ice shelves and small grounded ice caps melted the sea would rise by 0.5m.If the Greenland Ice cap melted the sea would rise 7mIf the Antarctic Ice cap melted the sea would rise 61mSo in an "iceless" world the sea would be 68.5m higher - which would be a catastrophe IF it happened.Since the Antarctic is gaining ice mass and the Greenland ice cap is getting thicker (although it is melting at its edges), and the mass of ice is increasing at both of  these locations - I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over sea levels. Experiment : Take a 400mm diameter vessel add 100mm of salt (sea) water at 0°C (±12.9kg) now add 1kg of ice - (hugely more than the ratio of floating ice to sea volume) the level will be 107.75mm - allow the ice to melt - the level will rise "alarmingly" by 0.21mm  to 107.96 - this additional 0.21mm would further expand to 0.22 at 15°C (we are only looking at the expansion of the difference remember) its nothing - trust me. This is the effect of the fresh vs salt water density - repeat the experiment with fresh water and absolutely nothing happens. The behaviour of the world's ice is pretty much as can be expected from solar forced temperature variations and does not correlate in any way with CO2 forced "warming". http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/11/antarctic-ice-sheet-and-the-plot-thickens/ Reference "Sea Levels Rising A Total Fraud"  Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner - Head of Paleogeophysics & Geophysics - Stockholm University (retired 2005) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_great_sea_level_humbug.pdf IPCC Does Not Respect Peer Review.Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner recognised as probably the world's foremost expert on sea levels was appointed independent expert reviewer for the IPCC sea level change group of 23 persons - none of whom was an expert on sea levels. - he rejected their report ! Guess what ? The IPCC simply ignored him, found a sympathetic reviewer and published it anyway - thus sidestepping the peer review process. The IPCC has since gone out of its way to marginalise and denigrate Dr. Mörner but this has prompted him to appear at the various COP meetings to present his skeptical take on the alarmist sea level reports. The IPCC only accepts peer review when it agrees with them ! ? After COP17 in Durban, Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was referred to in the press as follows "contributions by so called scientists like Mörner were not helpful." (my emphasis) - this was the sum total of reporting on the skeptical position - simply typical of the press to ignore his titles, qualifications, published papers and honours - the one thing climate alarmists cannot stand is someone who actually knows what they are

talking about being on the other side - so they try to denigrate and marginalise them - standard practice I'm afraid.  www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html 

Several expert reviewers appointed by the IPCC have had their comments - which in many cases were outright damnation - completely ignored and the reports published without change. In most cases this has led to the resignation of the reviewer. Again this has become a deliberate Darwinian process ensuring an ultimate collection of yes-men. Google "IPCC expert reviewers ignored" for nearly 30 000 hits. Earth, Sun & Climate All stars flicker in output (not the twinkling you see caused by our atmosphere) but actually cycle in luminosity. Some are quite rapid (e.g. Cepheid Variable stars)  but our star the Sun does so over a 5000-20000 year period (cycles within cycles) - this is caused by it swelling up slightly becoming less active and then collapsing again thereby increasing its output which causes it to swell again. At the moment our sun is on an uptick of 0.4% increase in output per 100 years. Its not particularly noticeable but even that small increase in output represents more energy striking the Earth in a year on year difference of more energy than man creates. In other words (and I know this is a vast oversimplification) if we shut down all energy production (thus causing the death of most of humanity) we might "buy" ourselves a year against whatever catastrophe we might imagine is looming (there isn't one believe me) whilst the reduction in emission of CO2 from such a drastic step might buy us a further couple of hours. On top of this you have the 80-yr-long Gleissburg solar cycle and the shorter sunspot activity cycle that cycles over about twenty-one years. There is close correlation between high global temperatures, droughts etc with periods of high sunspot activity. A further complicating factor is the long term variation in the Earth's orbit from its current roughly circular orbit out to elliptical and back and whether or not perihelion coincides with the winter or summer tilt of the Earth's axis. Even the erratic orbit of the Sun around the galaxy is thought to be an influence. All somewhat distant and theoretical so lets stick to the short term. 

Projection to 2025 of a sinusoidal curve fitted to historic surface temperature since 1860, which outlines the 80-yr-long Gleissburg solar cycle. Note that global temperature is predicted to decline over the first two decades of the 21st century (after Klyashtorin & Lyubushin, 2003). (The noise bars from 2000 onwards indicate the 95% confidence limits.) This graphic clearly shows the sunspot cycle and the overall upslope in temperature that corresponds to the 0.4% per 100 years upslope in our Sun's output.  Actual temperature data (as opposed to imaginary computer generated "data") thus far supports this projection.

 The graphic above shows the same cyclicality along with the "noise" in the raw data. It should be obvious that if you "cherry pick" data from 1970 to 2000 you are going to see

an "alarming" upward trend unsupported by the big picture. It also shows the current temperature downturn to be in line with past cycles and is as expected.By the same token if you considered the strongly downward trending data from 1940 to 1970 you can see why alarmists at the time were predicting a coming ice age.What this also shows is that temperature is unrelated CO2 to which has been increasing steadily throughout.Repeating my earlier statement - the hand of man is evident in the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere but it has no damaging effects - only beneficial effects - as plant food. A new paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the University of Alaska rebuts the IPCC's claim of a 4°C (±2.0°C) temperature increase by 2100, predicting instead 0.5°C (±0.2°C). Dr. Akasofu researched publications and data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes in cosmic ray intensity from the year 1000 to the present, in order to examine how the earth recovered from the Little Ice Age. He found that this recovery has proceeded in a roughly linear manner from 1800-1850 to the present at a rate of about 0.5°C/100 years. Superposing the multi-decadal oscillation on this linear change caused temporary halts in the recovery in 1940 and 2000. http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstractAgain this shows the warming to be part of a natural trend that man has nothing to do with. Once again let me remind you we are still climbing out of an ice age. Anyone want to go back ?

One of the reasons that the Sun is ignored is that its variability is quite small and many hold this to be insufficient to drive climate change - unless it influences some other "multiplier effect" - one possible multiplier - supported increasingly by the science (re earlier comments on "Earthshine" being measured on the Moon as a measure of Earth's albedo - supports this theory) is the forcing effect of cloud nucleation by cosmic rays - cosmic rays cause cloud nucleation (create clouds) particularly high cloud which have a nett cooling effect.During high sunspot activity and higher solar output - the solar magnetic winds cause less cosmic radiation to strike the earth, therefore less cloud formation and therefore more than anticipated warming - ie a forcing effect - currently estimated at 3.5 times the nett heating effect on its own. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/ Experiments at CERN have now proven this theory to be fact. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/ Read the above article - it is illuminating to see how the CERN experiment has been suppressed and stonewalled every step of the way. Those in charge were clearly concerned that this was an experiment to disprove the AGW hypothesis - it wasn't - but its a logical conclusion. So they imposed all manner of restrictions on the conclusions the scientists would be allowed to draw - smacks of censorship to me. Unfortunately for the warmists, in science the truth cannot be suppressed. Other scientists not gagged by their employer immediately spotted what it meant and published their interpretation of the raw data.

 Similarly it is universally agreed that CO2 on its own cannot be responsible for the "warming" and therefore must also be assisted by some "forcing" or the other (none of the models can produce a man-induced warming without such forcing). These forcings both by  CO2 and the Sun are a collection of both positive and negative forcings (ie ocean warming increases cloud cover, low clouds cause warming, high clouds cause cooling etc. etc.) my problem is that the modelers generally selectively pick or mathematically favour the forcings that  most support their hypothesis - again this is bad science. Note: As pointed out earlier the IPCC's 3x Forcing by CO2 is incorrect and is in fact (based on current research) a negative -0.5x.At the time the IPCC chose 3x - it was simply a guess - based on what was needed to support their hypothesis - there was absolutely no science underpinning this guess - none whatsoever.Actual scientific processes to determine this forcing find it to be not only lower but negative ! However the IPCC steadfastly refuses to modify its 3x assumption - the reason is obvious - without it the global warming problem simply disappears and along with it the IPCC. (repeat) "It is beyond coincidence that all these errors should be in the same direction."Dr. Matt Ridley - Angus Millar lecture to the Royal Society - Edinburgh - Nov 1st 2011 None of these forcings act unilaterally nor linearly but this is frequently the presentation in mathematical models.The real climate data does not support this position and as I have pointed out earlier they appear to cancel each other out curtailing the influence of one forcing type vs another. Clearly if your model only uses those forcings that cause warming, your model will predict warming and vice versa. None of the alarmist models survive testing against real climate data ! http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/ The current alarmist response to the clear (and admitted) failure of their models is to claim that the current situation is a "climate anomaly" and that the models will prove to be correct in the long term - simply  the "Trust me I'm a Doctor" approach to science once again. The Earth appears to have an inbuilt regulating device in the form of the water vapour in the atmosphere. When air & ocean temperatures rise (because of increased solar output), the amount of water vapour increases (and water vapour increases exponentially with temperature) - this increases cloud cover which reflects more radiation back into space plus it increases the thermal carrying capacity of the atmosphere to carry heat into the troposphere were it can radiate or lose energy to space as IR. More water reaches the poles to increase ice cover although the ice shelves themselves shrink because of the warmer oceans. (Does this sound familiar ??) Similarly if the sun's output diminishes and temperatures fall, cloud cover is reduced, ice shelves extend (because of cooler oceans) and more heat strikes the Earth. The cosmic ray effect acts as a moderator to the degree of cloud formation. 

Alarmists like to tell us that although increased water vapour is a positive feedback mechanism (resulting in more heat being absorbed) it does not cause thermal runaway because of the negative feedback effect of clouds. Partially true, but you can only come to such curious science if you cherry pick the role of water vapour in your modeling - which is what the IPCC does. The IPCC models assume (no proof for this assumption) that the small temperature increases caused by CO2 results in further water vapour being added to the atmosphere which in turn absorbs more heat - by a factor of 3:1 - the magical multiplier effect ! The inconsistency in this is obvious - the increased water vapour does not act as a positive feedback because of the saturation of IR absorption - there is no more energy to be absorbed (or so little as makes no difference) so the positive feedback is negligible but the negative feedback (of clouds) is large. Due to the exponential increase of water vapour with temperature this negative feedback becomes more and more pronounced as temperatures increase so it has a very large progressively negative feedback property in the form of increased cloud cover. This is clearly a self stabilising system, equally clearly if the reverse were true (as the alarmists are wont to suggest) the Earth's climate would be hopelessly unstable.  It should also be obvious that the positive and negative "feedback" properties of any of the "greenhouse" gasses are not constant but rather dependent on many other conditions.One cannot consider the properties of a single greenhouse gas in isolation - this will lead you to conclude it has a far greater effect than it does in reality. Similarly if the world was very cold (a'la iceage) then the moisture content of the atmosphere would be very low and the positive feedback (of any additional vapour) would become large and the negative feedback (of virtually absent) clouds very small. As Miscolczi has demonstrated from NOAA data the overall effect is a negative 0.5X vs the IPCC's positive 3X forcing effect and the nett result of temperature gain by CO2 is offset by the net loss of incoming radiation to high cloud. 

CO2 does not cause "Global Warming" as postulated by the IPCC. All in all the climate is a self regulating system - with obvious variabilities - variabilities which are being claimed as man induced. This water vapour moderated model explains the relative climate stability in the warmer interglacial periods. It does not explain the inordinate lows of ice ages or at one point in the paleological record when the Earth froze over completely. (A period known as "Snowball Earth".) Nor does it explain the disappearance of much of the grounded ice associated with very much higher sea levels in prehistoric warm epochs. It goes without saying that alarmists are predicting both high and low catastrophes because of AGW with only assertions as "proof". (The absence of a supporting landmass under the South Pole during continental drift would cause the seas to be 50m higher.) 

To date no credible model / supporting evidence has been generally accepted that explains these paleological extremes. There are a large number of theories such as galactic dust clouds when we travel through the spiral arms of our galaxy, Solar variance etc. etc. Anyone claiming that CO2 was responsible for these extremes is simply presenting unsubstantiated speculation as fact.There is even a theory that our sun is a binary and its companion star is a dim brown dwarf in a 26 million year elliptical orbit. This "death star" even has a name - "Nemesis" - a compelling theory that fits with the periodicity of life extinguishing events so well that NASA and others have spent a good deal of time looking for it - but we can't find it. NASA is still looking (its deeply elliptical orbit would provide very little relative motion against the background stars -  coupled with its dimness would make it extremely hard to find). (Don't worry, if it is out there its not due back for another 21 million years.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star) The shorter term evidence suggests that the most recent warming cycle has ended and we are now at a sunspot minimum and going into a cooling period but the warming will certainly return.We are currently at nearly 1500 days without significant sunspot activity and the climate IS cooling, our Sun is at its least active for a hundred years. Note: About midway through 2012 the next sunspot cycle appears to have started, much later than anticipated. Also there are differences in the "normal" solar hemispheric patterns and we may well be in for a protracted "cooler" sun until 2026. http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/climate-change-and-the-quiet-sun/ As one skeptical expert suggested somewhat tongue in cheek "you had better pray that CO2 does cause warming - we are going to need it."  Is CO2 The Cause Of Life Extinguishing Events ? Climate alarmist are even linking CO2 to the great extinctions in the paleological record - starting with the "great dying" at the end of the Permian period 250 million years ago which wiped out 99.9% of all life and 95% of all species at the time - this has been pretty much solidly blamed on massive flood basalt flows - volcanic lava eruptions - which took place for a million years and covered thousands of square kilometers of Siberia in lava. The darkened sky and Sulphur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide polluted atmosphere halted photosynthesis and the food chain collapsed. It is also now widely held that this volcanism was caused by an antipodean asteroid strike in the Antarctic - a double whammy.Again the large increase in CO2 occurs after the event so cannot be causal but the alarmists like to infer that high CO2 is "associated" with extinction events - the alarmism is obvious !Bear in mind if 99.9% of all biological (organic = carbon based) life-forms perished they would all decompose liberating their Carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 and there would be virtually no plant life left to absorb it - so sudden rises in CO2 after life extinguishing events cannot be considered abnormal or in any way a causal factor - it is simply just what you would expect to see. Is Ice Loss Likely To Cause Thermal Runaway ? 

Much is made of the loss of the reflectiveness of the ice - the theory being that the loss of the ice leads to more energy being absorbed - leading to yet more melting in a "tipping point" - leading to catastrophic meltdown.Remember only 2.8% of the sun's insolation (radiance to Earth) falls on the Artic and Antarctic combined (only 1.4% per pole - that's why its cold down there, less than 1/6th the solar energy per square metre than the rest of the Earth receives) and at such a shallow angle (22.44° or shallower) that it tends to reflect off water as well if not better than off snow.As you might expect, when the alarmists do their calculations, they generally only consider one side of the equation. (And of course in the averaged "flat earth" models mentioned earlier - it has no effect on light falling vertically.) Placing a matt black card on the surface (as has been demonstrated in various documentaries) at the Artic is not the same thing as water or the ocean. Try the same experiment with black glass (which is a far better approximation), and conduct the experiment in the Arctic (to get the correct incident angle and amount of energy of the Sun) and you get no result - but since when does realism or truth matter when people have to be convinced of the looming catastrophe by any means. It also makes lousy TV - suddenly (dramatic chord) nothing happened ! - doesn't sell.I saw one documentary where this was performed outside the University in sunny California (really ??) - we all know that matt black card absorbs heat - there just isn't an awful lot of the stuff lying around the Artic. The alarmist argument is that if the ice (which reflects sunlight) is replaced by water (which absorbs sunlight), there is going to be an increase in temperature which seems obvious but for the fact that water behaves like a mirror at Artic incident angles.The mirror effect is better than snow and ice except for the presence of waves which obviously present faces and facets above the critical angle causing some energy to be absorbed. The percentage albedo for snow is about 90% (i.e. about 90% of the energy is reflected off) the Albedo for the Ocean at low angle is 95% which is better than snow.This is born out by the fact that when the polar skies are clear the sun streams in but temperatures drop - it is warmer at the poles when it is overcast as this absorbs and insulates heat. Remember also that 70% of the world's surface is ocean which is almost "black" to sunlight - absorbing virtually all of it (95% when it enters above the critical reflection angle - only 5% when below critical angle) - this is still further biased towards the equatorial regions because of incident angles. More than 60% of solar energy is absorbed in the tropics (between 22.44° North & South) and more than 80% between the 46th parallels. The closer you get to the poles the less the significance of the energy available. By coincidence the critical angle for reflection is 46° so beyond this point ever larger amounts of visible spectrum light are reflected off into space. The edge of the Artic circle does not make it past critical reflection angle (off water) even in mid-summer at midday. The bulk of the (very limited) energy simply bounces off. Are Tsunamis Caused By Global Warming ? Believe it or not it did not take long for alarmists to suggest that the (Boxing Day) Eastern Tsunami was caused by global warming.The fact that this is a regular seismic event (approx every 2000 years and last happened when Krakatoa blew up) doesn't seem to bother them.Huge ice mass loss may trigger latent seismic events (which would happen anyway) but there is no evidence to suggest this is happening either way.This is simply shouting fire to frighten the ignorant - it deserves no further comment. 

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3583 Was Katrina Caused By Global Warming ? Similarly it did not take long for alarmists to suggest that Katrina and subsequently Sandy and the ensuing catastrophes were caused by global warming. Incidentally hurricane Sandy was the first major hurricane since Katrina - one of the longest recorded periods in history without a major storm - so much for causality. What made them unique was that they both made landfall during an inordinately high spring tide at an inconvenient location - that's just bad luck and nothing to do with CO2 .  Firstly there is no evidence for increased hurricane activity or severity. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/ http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes  (even the pro-AGW   NOAA says so.) Secondly the US Army Corps of Engineers predicted the Katrina scenario in 1968 noting that a category 4 or 5 hurricane making landfall at New Orleans at a spring high tide would overwhelm the levee system.The report recommended extending and raising the levees - this plan was however scotched by - you guessed it - Environmentalists. American Rivers & The Sierra Club filed suit against it calling it "Barriers against Nature". They should of course be happy now that nature has been allowed to overflow this barrier. It is obviously unfair to single out the environmentalists as they were only part of the process - but I do find their current sanctimonious stance somewhat irritating. http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7322 Similarly the risk to New York has been known since the 50's but nothing has been done about it. New York has been hit by far worse in the past - Mayor Bloomberg is currently praising new building on vacant land - the land is vacant because it was completely scoured of structures in 1950 by a major storm surge. Refer to the Financial Post article (link below) which places the blame squarely on politicians. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/01/01/the-witches-of-warming/ The author describes blaming hurricane Sandy on CO2 as having the same scientific merit as blaming Witches for bad weather. Can The Earth Become Another Venus ? First suggested by Rupert Wildt in the 1940's, Carl Sagan popularised the hypothesis that runaway Global Warming generated by Venus' CO2 atmosphere caused it to be almost red hot (580C°). Sagan was an alarmist on numerous issues that have turned out to be false.

Various alarmists ran with his idea and suggested that if our CO2 emissions continue unchecked the Earth could become like Venus. To do that we would need to manufacture nearly 90 complete atmospheres worth of CO2 (or about 270 000 times more CO2 than is currently in our atmosphere) and move our planet about 26 million miles (about a third of the distance) closer to the Sun. We don't have enough carbon or oxygen on earth to accomplish even a miniscule fraction of this.  Venus' atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of earth is comprised almost entirely of CO2 and receives almost double the amount of energy from the sun because it is significantly closer. If Earth's atmosphere increased to 90 atmospheres pressure, the surface temperature would rise to 340C° - without any additional CO2 or greenhouse effect whatsoever (Boyle's Law - Physics). Venus' atmospheric temperature about 30km from the surface where the pressure is similar to Earth (1 Bar) - the temperatures are much more earth-like (about 30°C) - there is speculation that there might even be life there. Carl Sagan is on record as saying "I don't need to explore both sides of an issue when I know which side is right !" demonstrates a remarkably closed mind for a scientist. http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/venus.html Venus is absolutely nothing like Earth other than its size and approximate density. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWvenus.htm Comparisons are far fetched and totally misleading but you can find plenty of references to suggest this absurd possibility. Its alarmism - pure and simple - like children trying to scare each other with bigger and better horror stories. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5 Is CO2 Acidification Of The Sea Harmful To Marine Life ? Of all the alarmist arguments, this is the one where almost all the claims made appear to be simply assertions of fact which are in fact merely speculation based on persons limited knowledge of what "acid" will do to marine life.(They assume that its like pouring Sulphuric acid onto living things - obviously !) Alarmists & the IPCC have categorically stated that marine life will be adversely affected by CO2 ocean acidification particularly crustaceans such as any sea organism with a "shell". This has been demonstrated in a laboratory and the results published in National Geographic November 2007 (and repeated ad-nauseum elsewhere). What was not mentioned was that the experiments used Hydrochloric acid to reduce the pH. The experiments did not replicate living habitat conditions or acidification by CO2 (dead empty sea shells were used). 

You probably drink carbonic acid every day in carbonated soft drinks - I dare you to drink dilute hydrochloric acid at exactly the same pH. Yet other experiments have shown how "dead" shells dissolve faster in CO2 rich water - absolutely true - but not true for living creatures which simply replenish & maintain their shells faster - plus the increased CO2 enables them to do so.Shells even dissolve in pH 7.0 (neutral) water but this is never mentioned or compared. As with so much of the AGW argument, never let the facts get in the way of a good scary story ! 

Other more realistically conducted experiments have clearly shown that crabs, lobsters, phytoplankton, coral etc all seem to thrive in an "acidified" ocean and higher CO2 levels.         NORMAL CO2                CO2 SEVEN TIMES HIGHER

The IPCC position also flies in the face of actual data from the oceans where the lowest pH (most acidic) occurs at natural upwelling points which are the most acidic and teem with life. It also flies in the face of paleological and sedimentary records which show that even with CO2 at 10 times its current levels, life in the oceans has thrived.Again as per Henry's law mentioned earlier the colder a liquid, the more gas can dissolve in it. The coldest regions in our seas are the most CO2 saturated, acidic and teeming with life. It is the warmer CO2 depleted oceans which are less inhabited.It should also be obvious that even minor warming of the oceans by the Sun will result in significant release of CO2 as demonstrated in earlier graphics. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/

 The deep ocean is where the bulk of the world's CO2 is stored (50 x the atmospheric CO2 mass) because of cold and pressure. When it upwells the sea is supersaturated with CO2 - if this was so harmful to life, why does life thrive there ? Most organisms with shells (that is calcium carbonate= CaCO3) need the dissolved CO2 in order to develop their shells and grow. Even when subjected to levels of CO2 seven times larger, they grew faster with each increase in CO2.CaO + CO2 = CaCO3 - shells cannot form without CO2. Only beneficial effects could be found up to about 1000 ppm CO2. Some marine life is adversely affected at massively increased CO2 levels but studies found that even this depended on many other factors such as nutrients. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Group expressed surprise at these results and have concluded that much more study is required (ie we need more research grants) before we can come to any conclusions. Being pro-AGW they of course added the caveat that we should nonetheless continue to reduce our CO2 emissions - and the logic is ????? (a conclusion unsupported by the research - typical !) According to the models, human emissions of CO2 are projected to acidify the world’s oceans by 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, which would be “catastrophic” for corals, clams and other creatures that make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. A game-changing paper, High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison, finds that, far from being stable, pH in 15 spots all over the world are constantly changing by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units/month. The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pHs forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily basis. Open water areas in the Southern Ocean experience seasonal shifts of 0.3 to 0.5 pH units between austral summer and winter. A recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, reported that corals and mollusks transported to lower pH sites were able to calcify and grow at faster than normal rates when exposed to high CO2 levels.  http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/#more-19763 Note the above by the Woods Hole & Scripps Oceanographic Institutes - probably the most prestigious (and generally pro-AGW) marine institutes in the world. I think we can safely conclude that 1000 ppm CO2 presents no threat to the Earth or any of its inhabitants. As with Venus you can find plenty of articles predicting "death by CO2" - based on incomplete and misleading science. Virtually all these articles speculate (as fact) as to the damage "acid" will do - actual realistic experimentation, real world observation and paleological evidence shows this alarmism to be unfounded. For excellent technical reviews on this subject visit :- http://www.seafriends.org.nz and specifically :- 

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid3.htm http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid4.htm If you wade through all the above you will find the entire subject to be extremely complex. You will also find numerous alarmist papers dissected and found wanting in terms of conclusions unsupported by the evidence. Again this is symptomatic of scientists "wanting" man to be the culprit. Once again: To put man's insignificance into perspective - If ALL man's CO2 output dissolved into the sea it would raise the CO2 content of the sea by just 1% in 50 years (ignoring nature sinking most it - so more like 250 years). If ALL the atmospheric CO2 suddenly (both miraculous and fatal to the terrestrial environment) dissolved into the sea - it would raise the CO2 content of the sea by only 2%. Once again when you consider the fundamental data, the arguments of the alarmists that man's CO2 is going to cause major changes is simply laughable. http://sciencewatch.com/dr/fbp/2009/09aprfbp/09aprfbpRod/ http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ocean-acidification-another-nail-in-a-junk-science-coffin/ THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" IS SUPPRESSION OF CONVECTION NOT IR TRAPPING The "greenhouse effect" as we know it as the trapping of longwave IR radiation (as we were all taught) is simply one of those things that is incorrect but believed and worse taught - the list of commonly held erroneous beliefs is lengthy. It is easy enough to physically test it using test tubes of ordinary glass (which reflects IR) and quartz (which transmits IR) , with a suitable "blackbody" within and a thermometer - conduct under glass to eliminate local & incidental IR - no difference will be discerned - try it again filled with CO2 - Again you will find no significant difference. Remember Aristotle - he believed women had more teeth than men - based on his knowledge of horses - it never occurred to him to actually check ! The following was published in the Philosophical Magazine 1909 Vol 17 p319-320 - we have known it to be false for 100 years.Professor Wood was at the time considered one of the foremost experts in Infrared radiation.  XXIV. Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)  THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its

temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents. To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 C°, the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate. There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 C°. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 C°, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped. Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions. I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.  If you can find an article using the term "Greenhouse Effect" that actually references a technical paper demonstrating this IR "trapping" effect - please let me know - I haven't !  The laws of Thermodynamics & quantum physics don't  permit it. As pointed out earlier the difference in energy in an actual greenhouse is almost entirely vested in its water vapour. Prof. Woods experiments have recently been repeated and verified - the "greenhouse effect" is not caused by IR "trapping". http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html 2009 A Make Of Break Year For Global Warming ? 

The alarmists are getting more and more agitated - suggesting that if we do not take action this year it will be too late. I strongly suspect that 2009 is likely to see severe winter weather hitting the northern hemisphere (because we are entering a cooling cycle). I made this prediction early in 2009 - and it came to pass in spite of the fact that Northern hemisphere summer in 2009 produced a high temperature spike. Any attempt to convince people of global warming after this is likely to fail. The alarmists know this and if the world takes action now they can say that the cooling was due to their efforts. Obviously if the world cools without taking any action their case is going to be severely weakened. (And they are going to look extremely foolish to boot.) Note that it is not entirely without relevance that the AGW alarmists have been backing out of the increasingly less believable term "Global Warming" into the more sinister sounding and utterly non-specific "Climate Change".The more cynical amongst us refer to "Climate Change" as "Global Warming's" Winter name.

The current war cry "Climate Change Is Real" is a pretty meaningless piece of hyperbole - climate change is normal and ongoing.The most recent piece of hyperbole to "explain" the current downward trend is to refer to it a "climate disruption" - as in the case of calling the Medieval Warm Period a "climate anomaly" this is a facile attempt to bury the harsh reality of a failed hypothesis beneath smarmy words.

Re cartoon above - John Holdren is President Obama's science advisor and has used all of these terms over the years - he predicted an ice age in the 70's that would result in a thickening of the Antarctic ice that would result in Tsunamis that would destroy all coastal economies as mile high glaciers calved off into the sea. I didn't believe him then and since it never happened I have even less reason to believe him now. 

For an excellent article on Global Warming McCarthyism visit  www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf The supportive graphics at the end of the document are excellent and show these various trends - it also shows how "Cherry Picking" the data can be very misleading. The 60 year solar cycle graphic shown earlier comes from this source. The alarmist viewpoint is coming under increasing scrutiny and as a result the number of skeptics keeps growing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html There is now a significant and growing number of alarmists who have become skeptics. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12 A survey in UK found 71% of Britons believed global warming to be natural and 65% thought that scientific predictions of climate catastrophe were "far fetched". http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/71-in-british-survey-believe-global-warming-is-natural-pheno.html A similar survey in the US found that more people believed in ghosts than global warming and that the number of GW believers has dropped from 77% to 57% in just two years (and falling). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey In both cases there is a clear and on-going reduction in the number of believers. Once again - science is never (or should never be) about counting votes - included for reference only. I suspect belief in Global Warming will diminish from 2010 onwards eventually fading from public issue and back to the realm of academic interest where it should have stayed in the first place. An alarming recent trend by warmists (realising that they are losing the argument) is to claim that it doesn't matter and we would still be doing the "right thing"..... "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will still be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth - Under Secretary of State - Clinton Administration "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits..Climate Change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart - former Canadian Environment Minister 

"A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the (enhanced) Greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedick - Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Recently even Al Gore admitted that some of the science might be wrong - but then said it doesn't matter "so what if the ice won't disappear in 50 years, it will still disappear in 100 or 200 years or so." He also stated that the Northern ice cap has been stable for the last billion years and only recently has man destabilised it. Absolute horse manure - there was an ice age only 20000 years ago and there was almost no Northern ice in 1400AD - Al Gore really doesn't know anything about the subject he professes to be an expert on.  Similar comments have also been made by other world leaders - this implies that the awful truth of the hoax is beginning to sink in and they either wish to continue (The Emperor's new clothes syndrome) or are buying time to slowly back out of it. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warmings_new_clothes_1.html In brief these people believe that we should spend Trillions of tax dollars curing a non-existent problem - even though this may have catastrophic economic consequences - because it is a "Good Cause".  Says who ??It is clear they are gearing up for the next phase of the campaign which will follow the debunking of the global warming myth - that we should nonetheless continue to reduce our carbon emissions because it is the right thing to do (the precautionary principal). From a scientific point of view this is idiotic.

  A Sample Of Non Believers & Skeptics Fortunately the list of prominent scientists who don't buy AGW is getting lengthier - one of the most recent being Freeman Dyson, one of America's pre-eminent scientists. He was immediately branded as "senile" and a "Heretic" (yes really, a heretic - GW has clearly become a religion) - simply typical of the verbal abuse heaped on detractors. The Civil Heretic Click on link for New York Times Article. Similarly when Dr. Vincent Gray "jumped ship" and criticised his fellow Nobel Laureates on the IPCC panel, alarmists immediately started to question his sanity (he's gone senile they said), his qualifications, his expertise, experience, funding and motives etc. etc. Not a murmur whilst he was on their "side" - I did not find any of these articles attempting to rebut his science. Blah...Blahh..Blahhh..... Dr. Judith Curry - Chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute for Technology was at one time the "High Priestess of Global Warming" but has since turned "to the dark side" and become a "climate heretic" - the quotes are from various websites dedicated to rubbishing her reputation. Google "Dr Judith Curry high priestess" for 281 000 hits - then Google "Dr Judith Curry heretic" for 310 000 hits. In all fairness to the good doctor, she has not completely turned to the "dark side" she is merely advocating a more cautious approach in that the uncertainties in the data preclude the conclusion that the alarmists are coming to. For this they want to burn her at the stake as a witch. (She has been referred to as "The Wicked Witch of Climate Science".)

Her turnabout came after engaging with skeptical scientists rather than simply dismissing them. Some alarmists suggest that she has somehow become tainted by contact with skeptics and use this argument to suggest that consorting with skeptics is corrupting as if skepticism was some form of contagion. A group of eco-psychologists held a conference at the University of West England in Bristol in August 2009 and proclaimed that "climate change denialism" is a new mental disorder. Apparently I'm nuts.Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the university of Oregon said this at a recent conference (Planet Under Pressure - London): “Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated..." Sooooo we're back to the old Soviet trick of defining political opposition as a mental illness.Her comments were so ridiculed that all record of them appears to have been "disappeared" by the university. Similarly NASA climatologist Dr. Joanne Simpson commented on retiring that since she was no longer obligated to toe the line she could announce that she was skeptical of alarmist AGW claims. (Yet more evidence of NASA's subservience to political rather than scientific objectives.)Also a letter by 49 retired astronauts, engineers & scientists to NASA stating its support of the AGW hypothesis is ill-conceived and unsupported by the science - again because they are retired, their jobs are not threatened by going against the establishment position.Please note that whenever NASA talks about GW it refers to the (cherry picked) terrestrial data - not the satellite data - how very curious for a "space agency" - let me remind you that the satellite data is unsupportive of the GW hypothesis.) Emeritus Professors - who have no funding fallout fears, tend to be the majority of academics opposing the hysteria, followed by tenured professors etc. By far and away the greatest proponents are those most in need of project funding - need I say more ? You can easily dismiss me as a crank but you cannot simply dismiss the following list of eminent scientists and environmentalists :- Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of GreenpeaceProf. Richard Lindzen, MIT Meteorology and climate expertDr. Willile Soon, Harvard PhysicistJohn Coleman, Founder of the Weather ChannelDr. David Bellamy - Environmentalist, author & documentary maker.Dr. Claude Allegre - Environmentalist & Geophyisicist (Converted to skeptisism in 2006)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.William J. R. Alexander PrEng, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering, South AfricaDon Aitken, Vice Chancellor, Univerisity of CanberraJohn W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD (Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama, U.S.A.Timothy F. Ball, PhD, Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Alberta, CanadaWilliam M. Briggs, PhD., Statistical Consultant (specializing in accuracy of forecasts and climate variability), U.S.A.

Stephen Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A.Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, AustraliaPhil Chapman, Geophysicist, NASA AstronautBuzz Aldrin - NASA PhD Astronaut and second man on the Moon.Michael Coffman, PhD, (ecosysytems analysis and climate change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.John Coleman, Founder, The Weather Channel, Weather Anchor, KUSI-TV, San Diego, California, U.S.A.Piers Corbyn, ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, owner of Weather Action long range forecasters, degree in Physics (Imperial College London), EnglandRichard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United KingdomJoseph D'Aleo, MS, BS (University of Wisconsin) Meteorologist and Climatologist (retired), Executive Director, ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.David Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, U.S.A.Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A.Edgar Gärtner, Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies (DEA, en Ecologie appliquée, Redaktionsbüro), Frankfurt am Main, GermanyFred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mechanical Engineering), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst, Stockholm, SwedenStanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, 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 ZealandWilliam M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, U.S.A.Art Horn, Meteorologist (honors, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, Vermont), operator, The Art of Weather, U.S.A.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.Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Senior Science Advisor of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, PolandMadhav 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, CanadaIn this source there are another 15 pages of highly respected skeptics of the global warming theory.Most of these in fields directly related to the theory of global warming. 

The Czech President Vaclav Klaus is a Global Warming skeptic. Dr. Claude Allegre (former alarmist & French socialist party leader - converted to skeptic in 2006) is widely tipped to be France's next Minister of the Environment - If this happens we can expect to see the shockwaves in the AGW campaign ripple through all European politics. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26945http://www.groups.xorte.com/Why-Greenpeace-Founder-Moore-Left-Greenpeace,t,57002,8.htmlhttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Who Are Believers, Who are skeptics I have come to the conclusion that the bulk of proponents of GW alarmism are those describing themselves as "environmentalists" although there are plenty of eminent skeptical environmentalists. The bulk of non-believers or skeptics tend to be Physicists (anyone who understands thermodynamics and spectral absorption), Statisticians, Engineers and a surprisingly large number of Climatologists (60-70% of US State climatologists) www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htmwww.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n4/feature.htm ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'  It is not my intention to belittle anyone's profession but the divide seem to me between those (in say biological fields) who are perforce required to draw inferences from statistical anomalies are more readily persuaded by the AGW hypothesis. Biological "cause" is always difficult to prove (because of the intractability of covariance problems) - hence the reliance on statistical anomalies - quite rightly so - but this is absolutely not the case for Physics. Those in the "harder" numerical based physical sciences are understandably not convinced. This is admittedly my own generalisation - draw your own conclusions. A recent survey of "Earth Scientists" had 79% of respondents expressing a belief that man is "probably" causing global warming. Firstly the target group is almost certainly biased and the question somewhat "leading".Secondly what they believe is irrelevant. What they can prove is all that matters. (Refer my earlier comments on poor questionnaire construction.) During preparation of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), governments’ political representatives decided by show of hands the “90% confidence” that more than half of the warming since 1960 was manmade.For those of us that understand statistics - confidence limits are calculated from data - they are not voted upon. This is a symptom of pernicious "consensus science" - Apparently we need not have launched the Hubble telescope into orbit or constructed the Large Hadron Collider in Cern - when all we needed to do was poll scientists to achieve consensus on the reality of Black Holes and the Higgs Bosun. 

This is as idiotic as the Monty Python sketch which had British & Empire Heavyweight Champion Jack Bodel vs Sir Kenneth Clark in a match for the chair of fine arts at Oxford. Consensus science will lead us to conclusions that are the modern day equivalent of an Earth which is flat and the center of the Universe. What seems obvious is not always so. Consensus is ultimately (and invariably) trumped by scientific fact. "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" - Galileo Galilei I have a problem understanding how scientists can be at daggers drawn with each other over a matter of science which should simply be an epistemic question: This alone should indicate that there is a serious problem with the notion of AGW being a settled science. http://www.practicalethicsnews.com Some Comments By Eminent Scientists "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled, and highly offended by it. Global Warming; it is a scam."John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel)

 "(The IPCC) has decided that they have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees you shouldn't disagree either. Whenever you hear that in science, it's pure propaganda."Prof. Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology MIT) "In my position, I can hardly find anyone who would subscribe to the IPCC scenario."Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner, Dept. of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics,Stockholm University - IPCC appointed expert reviewer on sea level change. "The question is why are flawed models used as a basis for enormously expensive policy decisions, far-reaching policy decisions. They shouldn't be."Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysics, Harvard University "The science we're being told by the IPCC is really incorrect science. Somehow the IPCC has become a global warming Bible, if you will. You can't disagree."Dr. David LeGatesCenter for Climatic ResearchUniversity of Delaware

Co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, says this: "I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore cause really it is a political activist movement. (the environmental movement against global warming) has evolved into the strongest movement there is for preventing development in developing countries." "Global Warming is Poppycock" - Dr David Bellamy - Environmentalist & Documentary maker.

"Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding." Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader NASA (space program)

Dr. Pius Corbyn… Climate Forecaster, Weather Action (He instituted a far more accurate weather forecasting paradigm based on sun storms and sun spot changes) Quote: "None of the major climate changes in the past 1000 years can be explained by CO2." Professor Richard Lindzen, Dept. of Meteorology, M.I.T. says the global warming movement is really about getting money. "Funding of from 170 million to 2 billion (2000 million) for climate and climate related issues (has occurred). Other scientists believe it is purely political…in order to get funding…a lot of jobs now depend upon the global warming myth".

"Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the global warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers."…Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environment Sciences, University of Virginia.

"Polar ice caps are always expanding and contracting"…Professor Syun-Ichi-Akasofu…Director of International Arctic Research Center. Gore published data on Arctic ice melt. Since the time Gore reported polar ice shrinkage, the polar caps have recovered the lost ice and then some.

 "Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first place."Professor Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology MIT)1992(and its corollary...)"Some people will do anything to save the Earth....except take a science course"- J.P. O'Rourke "Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us Artic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2

are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong."Dr Tim Ball - former Professor of Geography - University of Winnipeg PhD Climatology - London University.

“There are many people to whom I owe thanks for making me so despised. But I am most indebted to all of those who do not want global warming to be due to Mother Nature. They want it to be our fault. In their zeal to make energy too expensive for the poorest of the world to afford, they continually criticize my research, research which has

exposed the shoddy science underpinning the theory that climate change is caused by your SUV and your incandescent light bubs.

Yes, it has been a long road. But for those of us who dare to utter alternative hypotheses to explain climate change, we will continue to blaze a new trail for future scientists!

Scientists who will no longer have to twist their research results just to get funding, or to get papers published!

Scientists who will dare to follow where the evidence leads them! Scientists who, someday, might not be pressured to stay with the herd any longer. Who can stop thinking inside the box, and who no longer have to bow to the wishes of politicians who are heavily invested in the carbon trading market!

As I stand upon the shoulders of those scientists who came before me, who dared to change the direction of science, I will continue to suffer the slings and arrows from the Deniers of Natural Climate Change!"

Dr. Roy Spencer former NASA Climatologist (excerpt from his acceptance speech for America's top 100 persons hated by the left.)

Also by Roy Spencer "Where the IPCC has departed from science is that they have become advocates for one particular set of hypotheses, and have become militant fighters against all others…  Unfortunately, each modeling group (or the head of each group) already has an idea stuck in their head regarding how much warming looks “about right”. I doubt that anyone could be trusted to perform an unbiased investigation into model formulations which produce very little warming in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations."

Nigel Calder - Former Editor of New Scientist "The thing that has amazed me, as a lifelong journalist, is how the most elementary principals of journalism seem to have been abandoned on this subject."

He calls AGW "a looney idea"

Despite strenuous and extensive propaganda, attempts to claim consensus and the end of debate, Global Warming theory is becoming less scientifically accepted each year2008 International Conference on Climate Change, New YorkMarch 2-4, 2008

 Some Comments By Current & Former IPCC Scientists Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN and its "scientific" methods. Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on

scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions. "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.  “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  (repeat) Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants. "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. "All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol9Is197GrayReviewAbolishIPCC.shtml

 Consider The Propaganda That You Are Being Subjected To IPCC Lead Author

"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."Stephen Schneider, Author "The Genesis Strategy"2007 IPCC report "That propaganda is good which leads to success…It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success."Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment, National Socialist Party of Germany, 1933 "It is a good thing that global warming has become such a prevalent threat…I am glad for the threat of it. Fear has always been the strongest force of change among humans."John Tavares,OSU Barometer ColumnJanuary 28, 2008 Fear has always been used to control and motivateIt is consistently and intentionally used to promote submission to the aims of global warming Headline: "World Must Act Now On Climate""The world must deal with climate change now—or pay a much higher price later (leaving) half the world's population without adequate drinking water."AP article, March 2008 For control of a population, an enemy must be set up which is the cause of all the population's problemsFor Marxism, it was capitalistsFor National Socialism, it was the Jews

What is it today ? "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."The Club of Rome"The First Global Revolution"1991, page 104 "Climate change is mankind's most important challenge. We know the enemy: It is named carbon."Angel Gurria, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) secretary general, 2008  Global Warming skeptics such as myself are routinely marginalized asUneducatedIgnorantInsane / SenileAnti-environmentUncommonFringe Skeptics are branded as "deniers"

They are immediately ignorant and/or evil To blindly accept that a certain group of people are all ignorant or evil is bigotry Bigotry is often ignored, as long as it's used against "the enemy" Al Gore on the subject.Global warming skeptics are people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona" (June 20, 2006) "Those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now. They're almost like those who believe that the earth is flat…That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off.""60 Minutes", March 2008 Al Gore recently combined these views thus "Fifteen per cent of the population believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona and somewhat fewer still believe the Earth is flat. I think they all get together with the global warming deniers on a Saturday night and party." Such off-hand, unsubstantiated and demeaning remarks are clearly intended to stifle criticism. Al Gore is a Lawyer who has invested heavily in Carbon Credit companies - the conflict of interest is staggering.Al Gore has pointedly refused to enter into any form of scientific debate with his detractors, the simple truth is he cannot defend the indefensible. He only appears in forums where he can spout off without fear of contradiction.The man is a scientific coward and a charlatan. A number of politicians (most notably Gordon Brown) and GW alarmists have been resorting more and more to name calling - a sure sign that they are losing the argument. Even IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has resorted to asinine, churlish and childish remarks directed at skeptics as the skeptical pressure rises. He has repeatedly referred to skeptical science as "Voodoo science" - called skeptical scientists "Flat Earthers" and has suggested that skeptical scientists should "go and rub their faces in asbestos and breathe second hand smoke". Childish & unprofessional.Not once has he attempted to disprove or challenge the claims. Skeptical scientists have repeatedly called for an open debate on this issue - the warmists have simply refused by saying things like "we will not discuss this with flat earthers" - what are they so scared of ? I would suggest that they are terrified that they might be wrong ! So they clique together in mutual back slapping societies and convince each other that they are right. Thus far the alarmists have lost every open forum debate that has taken place. They are now "gun shy" to the point where some (pro AGW) institutions have issued cautions to their members not to take part in such debates. http://www.financialpost.com/news/climate+debate/4909390/story.html I would strongly recommend to the reader that he or she check out any of the climate related claims (such as the shrinking polar bear, the drowning polar bears, the cannibal polar bears etc. etc.)

When you discover the claim to be untrue or greatly exaggerated - ask yourself this question... "Why, if the GW science is so settled, do they need to indulge in propaganda ?" I find the current trend of targeting GW propaganda at children alarming. Analysis of how Hollywood   Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids  http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1187 Children should be off limits. The deliberate targeting of propaganda at children was effectively used by the Nazis, the Cambodian PolPot regime and the Hutus in Rwanda - all of which ended in genocide. Propaganda is extremely dangerous - it took just seven years of Nazi propaganda to turn the cultured, civilized and educated Germans into a bunch of mindless, psychotic. murderous anti-Semites. A similar holocaust was possible in Rwanda with only four years of propaganda. We have now been subjected to nearly 20 years of GW propaganda and the world has lost its collective scientific mind. "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as truth." Josef Goebels. The behaviour of the Eco-Fascists in Copenhagen in preventing skeptics from giving their presentations is redolent of Hitler's politic by suppression. It is downright scary to see the shining faces of climate acolytes trampling on democracy in pursuit of green political goals.

 Michael Crichton on the subject of "Consensus Science" & Bad Scientific Procedures. Michael Crichton was a Harvard MD by age 22 and a visiting lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge age 27 he was an intellectual heavyweight (died Nov 4 2008). Michael Crichton was the Author of "Andromeda Strain" "Jurassic Park", "State of Fear", plus the TV series "ER" and many others.  He was invited to Caltech to present the prestigious annual Michelin Lecture - this is the text of that lecture - I have included it in its entirety because it is probably the most lucid critique of "bad science" that I have ever read.  From http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.htmlDownloaded January 3, 2005Aliens Cause Global WarmingA lecture by Michael CrichtonCaltech Michelin LectureJanuary 17, 2003

 

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science - namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics - a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind.The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought, prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science.Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.But let's look at how it came to pass.Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals.A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains.In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fLWhere N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry.The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-

just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses."If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses.The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith.The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered.There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers.The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each new Creationist claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter.In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage.Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would

reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:               Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe…… etc(The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance……and so on.)The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were - and are - simply unknowable.Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long.No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere.No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on. And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made.Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic.According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees.Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign.The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, highprofile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times.Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on.The formal papers in Science came months later.This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter.

I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: "Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish." Hard science if ever there was.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that

after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists……"

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science.I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.Let's review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ."The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor.The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him.There was, in addition, a social factor - southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required.They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result - despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading.The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on?The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy……the list of consensus errors goes on and on.Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.But back to our main subject.What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism.Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent.Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but……who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree?Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly - and defended.

What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring.A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened.What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact.After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired.That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.)Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme.By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information."The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science…….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings……a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association.A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer.At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions.And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact

and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact.The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science - or non-science - is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron.Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks - suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases.In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction?Has everybody lost their minds?Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system no-one is sure, these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit ? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000,

France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS…… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about.Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famine, hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans.The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago.In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change.The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes."Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out.It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of

public policy dealing with technical issues in the future - problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them.The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad.This is not healthy for science.Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.Well, I'll tell you.In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct.We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press.The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." (But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.)But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts.The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail.Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages

down.Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference - science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science. Thank you very much.                                       *** End of Lecture*** If you hold dear the principals of Free Speech and the "Scientific Method" you should be alarmed over the suppression of debate so common amongst Global Warming proponents. Examples of Intimidation and Censorship 1988 – Prof. Lester Lave, Carnegie Mellon University, dismissed from a senate hearing for suggesting that Global Warming was not a settled science1989 – Meteorology Prof. Reginald Newell, MIT, lost NSF funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century1990 – Paper critical to global warming theory submitted to Science Magazine by MIT Meteorology professor - rejected without review The list is far to long for inclusion but it has been going on for a very long time. A number of scientists who could find no evidence of warming have seen their funding cut. The effects are Darwinian making the AGW hypothesis a self reinforcing fallacy. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html In its September 19th 2006 edition of the environmental magazine "Grist" - staff writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg style trials for what he termed "bastard" members of the "global warming denial industry". The magazine subsequently retracted the article.  Heidi Cullen (The Weather Channel) has recently urged that any on-air meteorologist who expresses skepticism regarding global warming be stripped of their credentials by the American Meteorological Society. In spite of severe criticism she has refused to retract this remark. In February 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki publicly called for politicians skeptical of a man-made climate ‘crisis’ to be thrown “into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”

An Australian journalist has even suggested that global warming denialism should be made a crime just like Holocaust denialism is. This thread has also been picked up by various politicians who have hinted that "denialism is a criminal act".  Dr. Tim Ball former professor of Geography at Winnipeg University has even received death threats for his anti GW stance. See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation. Update: September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction."  Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor  (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.  Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt:  Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he’s talking about his views on climate?  Typical offhand unsupported demeaning remarks intended to stifle criticism :-

Al Gore on the subject. “Those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now. They're almost like those who believe that the earth is flat…That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off.""60 Minutes", March 2008 Popular Mechanics is on record as stating that Global Warming "Denialists" have "lost the plot" it is clear they won't and don't publish any contrary data or opinions. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg published the peer reviewed "The Skeptical Environmentalist" - was subjected to vicious ad-hominem attacks by The Scientific American which also attacked the publisher the Cambridge University Press (Scientists attacking a press ???) calling for its editor to be fired. Lomborg was compared to Holocaust deniers.These attacks are ongoing on various blogs. There is something decidedly odd in this. It is not how science is conducted - if you don't agree with someone's findings you publish a technical rebuttal pointing out the errors or

by presenting contrary evidence. Clearly these passionate detractors can't come up with anything better than "he's obviously an idiot" - man how's that for hard science. Recently alarmists such as Michael Mann have accused the skeptics of ad-hominem attacks - and this has of course happened in some cases - but it is still a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.In the leaked "climategate" e-mails, Mann & Jones' response to criticism is pure bombast and "flaming" he has repeatedly threatened to have scientists blackballed from prestigious journals with whom he imagines he has a lot of clout. Admittedly not all pro AGW scientists do this, but the practice is widespread (and becoming more and more so as they see they are losing the initiative) and pro AGW scientists seldom censure their colleagues for doing so. Recently even the Royal Society has been critical of global warming skeptics and where they obtain their funding etc. etc. They (like so many others) appear to be losing their scientific objectivity. The vice-chairman of the Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the press, suggesting they not publish skeptical work. If you understand freedom of scientific enquiry you will appreciate just how alarming this is !Recently the RS has backpedaled slightly after 43 members protested its handling of this issue. The current president, Lord Rees deciding to take a more balanced view said: "Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information [......] We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well." The American Physical Society is also experiencing a similar revolt by some members because of its biased handling of the AGW affair. A number of members have resigned their membership over the issue including Nobel laureate Dr. Ivan Giaever (Nobel Prize in Physics 1972) over its position that the evidence of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is “incontrovertible” – is in his view a religious statement. Dr. Giaever caused a stir in a 33-minute speech (The Strange Case of Global Warming) given at the 62nd meeting of Nobel Laureates.  <http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/#/Video?id=1410> Science is supposed to be dispassionate - too many scientists are allowing their passion for the subject to cloud their scientific judgment. Some Common Responses By Alarmists When faced with global warming skeptics or "denialists", global warming alarmists often use the following tactics which can be called non-arguments (they almost never discuss the science). "So you think its O.K. to keep on polluting the atmosphere" No CO2 is not a pollutant. "So you don't care about the environment". I care deeply about the environment - CO2 is part of it - without CO2 there won't be an environment, the environment lives off CO2. "You don't have any credentials as a climatologist" Neither does Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore and virtually all the world's press but this criticism is never leveled at supporters. I do understand the physics and statistics - they don't add up. Incidentally most lay proponents of AGW haven't a clue about the underlying physics or statistics. 

"That research(er) is bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry" As if pro GW research is paid for by non-vested interests. The fact is that "big oil" gives more money to "Greens" and avoids skeptics like the plague because of the obvious criticism that will ensue.Personally I have no vested interest apart from the fact that I live on planet earth. "The cautionary principle dictates that we should take action". The cautionary principal is a circular argument - if the action can result in harm we shouldn't take it either. The actions being proposed are positively lethal. "But surely you don't doubt the consensus of all the world's scientists ?" What consensus ? What all ? The Oregon Petition has over 31000 signatories - in any case science has nothing to do with counting votes. Consensus is defeated by just one scientist who just happens to be right. "So you think you know better than thousands of scientists" (Usually said in a condescending and dismissive manner) No, but I have read extensively arguments on both sides of the issue - have you ? My contrary viewpoint is shared by thousands of respected scientists. "But surely you can see with your own eyes that sea levels are rising, the ice is melting and violent weather is increasing in frequency and severity." Strangely enough I can't, nor can I find reliable uncontested scientific evidence for any of those claims. I can find fairly solid evidence that none of those claims are true. "So you don't believe the climate is changing ?" No - I'm pretty sure the climate is changing, I just don't believe man's emissions have anything to do with it. I also don't believe that man has the power to change the climate. The current climatic cycling is normal and predictable from past cycling. The current generation of AGW computer models cannot predict the past, therefore they cannot predict the future. "So you think we should just ignore it, stick our heads in the sand and do nothing ?" No I think we need to determine the truth without alarmism. We need to understand what we can and cannot do about it. If as I suspect we are unable to change the climate then we need to be planning to meet the challenges of climate change. We should not be wasting our efforts and resources on expensive window dressing exercises that are not only completely futile but probably downright dangerous. "So you think it O.K. that man continues to use up the worlds resources and plunder the natural environment ?" No I don't - but what has that got to do with the AGW argument ? "But surely increased greenhouse gasses must cause increased temperatures ?" (At last something approaching a scientific question) - No, not at ground level. No more heat is available. Higher levels of CO2 in the Stratosphere should in theory create an increase in temperature in the upper Troposphere and a decrease in Stratospheric temperatures (which might in turn eventually lead to higher ground temperatures) - but as yet there is no physical evidence for this, none at all. The problem with the theory is there is no agreement on how much the effect might be. The numbers "dialed in" to the models are in many cases "educated guesses" which means they simply represent the prejudices of the person selecting the numbers. "Surely you're not denying that the climate is warming up" No - and your point is ??? "Surely so many scientists can't be wrong ?" The problem is most of the scientists are engaged in fields of research involving the effects (not the causes) of Global warming -

such as melting glaciers, shrinking habitat, declining species populations, migration etc. They are of course concerned. They have simply fallen under the thrall of the alarmist assertion that CO2 is responsible. This is convenient as it gives them something to "blame" and better yet the prospect of being able to do something about it.Having latched onto this empowering notion that they can do something about it - it then becomes immensely difficult to let it go and lose the "power" they imagined they had."Dammit, I was going to save the world ! and now you're telling me I can't !"Such scientists invariably become skeptical if they actually do their own research into the causes of Global Warming. "We are going to run out of oil sometime, so we may as well do something about it right now". In other words you think we should adopt unfounded and expensive policy on the basis that it might accidentally do some good ? Biofuels alone have seriously distorted food prices and agricultural output. The unintended consequences of peremptory political action are invariably bad news. Mr. Jean Ziegler of the UN food for all program called the "biofuel scam" - "a crime against humanity". The IMF has expressed similar reservations about using food for fuel. "Most world governments agree we need to take action". They have been misled and besides when in history did it ever occur that people were actually clamouring to have taxes levied on them - its just too good an opportunity for any politician to pass up - do you really think they will spend all the collected tax on carbon mitigation - I doubt it !.Besides the GW scare gives them something to deflect their policy failures and lack of forward planning initiatives on. Its a lot easier to tackle imaginary problems than real ones.On top of that GW has become an emotional "Motherhood & Apple Pie" issue - it would be political suicide to speak against it. "But the world is warming - this proves the Global Warming hypothesis to be true". If I told you my hypothesis is that global warming is caused by aliens and that the warming therefore is conclusive proof that aliens are here - what would you say ? The premise of a hypothesis is not the proof - it can't be - its circular reasoning - by such logic any hypothesis must be true - no matter how idiotic !" "What do you know about climatology ?" Zilch ! but what does a climatologist know about physics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, statistics etc.The problem is this subject covers all areas of science and no one person is knowledgeable in all disciplines - therefore I can only quote from the position I understand and in all of those areas the theory is false. Ergo - the entire edifice is almost certainly a crock of dung. (Language moderated for prissy net nannies.) "Soooo you're a conspiracy theorist ?"   (Said with eyebrows raised.) No ! The concept of thousands of scientists and journalists being involved in some sort of giant sinister conspiracy is idiotic but that does not make them right. I am simply in the camp of thousands of equally respected scientists who are skeptical of the extreme warmist position. This position is underpinned by valid science and observation and is not simply a "gut feeling” or an impression derived from the media which is woefully ignorant on the subject. "Show me the peer reviewed science" or "Why don't these denialists publish their work for peer review ?". 

There is plenty - over 55% of current peer reviewed papers are either skeptical or unsupportive of the AGW hypothesis. This criticism is never leveled at the more lunatic ravings of non-peer reviewed alarmists either. Visit this site for links to current papers (hundreds of them). http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html Visit the following for a link to 850 peer reviewed papers supporting the skeptical positionhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlAs well as numerous books on the subject. I always ask alarmists to explain their understanding of the "greenhouse effect" - most haven't got a clue and some have it hopelessly wrong - but nonetheless believe in it passionately. In fact I have yet to meet a "believer" who can offer even an approximate explanation of the "problem" they believe in so passionately. When all else fails, they resort to name calling. I have seen GW skeptics referred to as "skeptics" (in inverted commas) "denialist" akin to "Holocaust Denialist" "Flat Earthers" of the 21st century etc. recently at a conference at UCT an academic likened denialists to "slave traders". Sticks & Stones........ I read a lot of the alarmist claims and counter claims and I sometimes wonder if I'm crazy - then I return to the science and review the AGW position - invariably these pieces are simply assertions of fact rather than logical arguments. Data and graphics are frequently presented which show correlation but no evidence is produced to show causality - it is either asserted or presumed.Next time you read or watch a global warming piece try to ignore the hype, assertions and strings of "ifs" -  { If temperatures increase, If the seas rise, if the ice melts etc.etc}. They seem to think if you string enough "ifs" and assertions together it constitutes proof ? Beware also that any proof of warming is not proof that CO2 is the cause.

 Where Are The World's Journalists ? Where are the world's journalists on this issue ? Mostly siding with populist alarmism simply because it sells copy.Most of the worlds fourth estate have given up all pretence of objective reporting and have simply become advocates for global warming. "I would freely admit that on Global Warming we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." - Charles Alexander - Time magazine science editor "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say." - Ross Gelbspan - Former Editor of The Boston Globe If you think this sounds a little paranoid, try getting your local press to publish a skeptical piece or even a skeptical letter - and see how far you get. 

Many TV stations, presenters, programs, journalists and print media have accepted awards from the alarmist camp and in some cases refer to these awards with pride (impartial journalists should not accept awards from vested interests - ever). How on earth are they ever going to admit it was all wrong. Remember Time magazine once voted Adolf Hitler "Man of the year". “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” Charles Mackay "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" Nigel Calder - Former Editor of New Scientist "The thing that has amazed me, as a lifelong journalist, is how the most elementary principals of journalism seem to have been abandoned on this subject." He calls AGW "a looney idea" You can't believe what you see in the media. I was recently watching a shockumentary called "A Global Warning" at one point they were discussing the melting of Kilimanjaro's glacier immediately followed by a clip of a river in flood with a car tumbling along in it - this was not shot at Kilimanjaro, it has no raging rivers running down it at any time (much less cars) and its icecap is well above the frost line - it does not melt - it sublimates - Kilimanjaro's ice cap is disappearing because of deforestation. The loss of the rain forest is leading to less precipitation. The weather stations on Kilimanjaro show no change in temperature.This jumping from one topic to a differing visual has the effect of confusing the viewer to conflate the two items. I know it misled me.At a second viewing I tried to count the number of "ifs" and gave up - if the ice melts, if the seas rise, if the weather gets more severe etc. etc. This again creates the impression of impending catastrophe by assertion. In "An Inconvenient Truth" there is a shot of the Ganges in India with the comments that the Indians face the loss of their water supply with the loss of the Himalayan glaciers - the glaciers store water - if they were melting it would increase the water runoff - the Ganges is fed by rainfall & snowmelt not the glaciers. If the glaciers were extending they would be storing water. The whole argument is internally inconsistent.As mentioned earlier the IPCC estimates of Himalayan glacier retreat were so bogus they were forced to apologise. Both of these documentaries left me with the firm impression that the science was solid but on carefully reviewing both I found them to be highly contrived. Indian Scientists Debunk UN Glacier Retreat Claim    An Inconvenient Truth is studded with examples where the film being shown is not the subject being discussed - it opens with cooling towers belching harmless steam into the sunset while Gore blathers on about pollution and CO2. I'll bet 95%+ viewers do not realise this. CO2 is invisible and makes lousy TV - so just shoot something else that looks ominous, add dramatic chords and a powerful voiceover and you frighten people. The right of "artistic license" to dramatise is totally unacceptable in media purporting to be factual / scientific documentaries.  Almost everything you see in the media on this topic is at least biased, exaggerated, untrue and in many cases outright falsification. 

We are owed better than this by the world's media, they should use their power responsibly. Example: A filmmaker for Disney once fabricated a story about Lemmings hurling themselves off cliffs and into the sea in a suicidal response to overcrowding. The fact that this was totally false and the fact that Disney subsequently fired the filmmaker, permanently withdrew the film (White Wilderness) and issued apologies has not detracted from the fact that the bulk of the Earth's population now erroneously believe that Lemmings commit suicide. Did you ? Lemmings no more commit suicide than do Gnu (wildebeest) during their annual migrations although large numbers do die in this process. As a final kicker the particular species of lemmings they herded to their deaths by drowning don't even migrate.In a similar twist of fate, like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, White Wilderness also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. False doctrine and propaganda are pernicious. The press is quick to jump on its high horse when subject to any form of censorship - but has been remarkably quiet in the defence of scientists muzzled by their political masters (refer to EPA scientists and US State Climatologists earlier). http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/28/media-ignore-revelations-epa-suppressed-skeptical-global-warming-repo Stop Press: The BBC (a bastion of global warming alarmism) has quietly broadcast a piece showing that global warming has stopped - is this is a change in direction or a mistake ??? we'll see........ Some cracks are appearing in the edifice.I feel sorry for some of these well meaning scientists - when the press wakes up to the scam they will turn on them and it won't be pretty. Please read Senator Inhofe's speech in which he criticizes the world’s press & media for their bias.  Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"  Wikipedia has for years only posted pro-AGW information - largely through the efforts of administrator William Connolley. Even stooping so low as to alter the biographies of eminent anti-AGW scientists so as to paint them in an unfavourable light.Reference to anti-AGW groups were limited to disparaging comments which subtly painted them as an unreliable bunch of nuts.http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wikipedia-fires-crazy-leftwingThis has eventually come home to haunt him - After a number of damning newspaper articles, Wikipedia was forced to hold an internal arbitration session which has seen Mr Connolly unanimously removed from anything to do with AGW. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/global-warming-propagandist-slapped-down/ That said the revisionism at Wikipedia continues - you will find no rational discussion of the skeptics scientific problems on Wikipedia, only denigration and dismissal. More Stupid Non-Science Experiments 

Refer to the black card sleight of hand experiment mentioned earlier (Is Ice Loss Likely To Cause Thermal Runaway) and the dissolving seashells in Hydrochloric Acid (Is CO2 Acidification Of The Sea Harmful To Marine Life).Not to mention the imaginary weather stations in Antarctica and China. In one documentary (Climate Wars) they stand a candle at the end of a short glass tube filled with air (presumably containing 380ppm CO2) and film it with an infrared camera. They then flood the tube with CO2 and the image of the flame disappears - Voila ! Proof positive that CO2 absorbs IR (which of course it does - we knew that) and by unspoken implication is the cause of climate change. What rubbish ! (Note also that the expansion of the compressed CO2 into the cylinder caused massive cooling - so a similar effect would have occurred if they had used IR transparent Nitrogen.) Such half-baked biased and misleading science is commonplace.  Now repeat the experiment my way - use a 100m long tube (a lot less than the thickness of the atmosphere).Fill it with 21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen and 1% Argon (as an analogue for our atmosphere without greenhouse gasses).Shine infra-red light from a radiant black body down the tube and measure the received energy at the other end. Now replace the analogue with normal atmosphere - remeasure the energy - it will be significantly lower than previous (90-99% less depending on relative humidity) because of the IR absorbed by the CO2 and water vapour in normal air. Now add an additional 380ppm of CO2 to simulate "doubling" of the CO2 and measure again.Guess what almost no change - why ? because the CO2 & water vapour in normal air is absorbing virtually all the IR Spectra that are available (in just 100m). Doubling CO2 will have almost no effect.If you repeat the test you will find considerable variance in results because of variance in relative humidity. This "noise" will swamp any measurable effect the additional CO2 has by several orders of magnitude.Proof positive that additional CO2 is insignificant ! Note: As in the use of computer models to turn non-supportive data into supportive data so too are physical experiments conducted to "prove" global warming which could just as easily and more correctly be used to disprove the hypothesis. True science requires the gathering of data from all possible outcomes of an experiment. The arbitrary selection of experiments which "prove" your hypothesis is extremely bad & fraudulent science. "Climate Wars" was at least an interesting departure from the norm in that it admitted the existence of skeptical scientists but dismissed their arguments without actual debate. It also failed to address some key points (water vapour, CO2 IR saturation and the missing "hot spot", "Stratospheric Cooling" and "radiative forcing signature" weren't even mentioned - since these are AGW's "Inconvenient Truths" that is hardly surprising.)If this was an attempt at being even handed, it fell woefully short of the mark. I suspect it was a ploy to create the illusion of balanced reporting. Simply ignoring the increasing skepticism might provide proof of bias.After watching the very convincing "Climate Wars" I was once again assailed by the fear that maybe I have got it wrong. So once again I trolled through the arguments, science, data, graphics etc. No I don't think so - if anything I am now more firmly convinced the alarmists have got it wrong. 

Examples of Hysteria & Intimidation Tactics RFK Jr. Lashes out at skeptics of global warming: 'This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors' (July 8, 2007) Excerpt: "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.  Skeptics called 'Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) Excerpt: Global warming driven by greenhouse gas pollution (but ultimately by greed, racism and lying) is killing our Planet. Our Planet, the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our Planet).  Update November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.  Update: February 10, 2008: Canadian Environmentalist David Suzuki Calls for skeptical leaders to be thrown ‘into jail’ - Excerpt: At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. […] “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”  Update: March 6, 2008: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression (NYC Climate Conference Report - Excerpt: Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.   Update: July 21, 2008: The rise and rise of Climate Blasphemy Report: 'Climate Blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy – Spiked Online - Excerpt: Increasingly in the climate change debate, no dissent can be brooked. I mean none. That is why, from the thousands and thousands of hours of TV programming devoted to climate change issues last year – from news reports on the threat of global warming to the lifestyle makeover shows imploring us to Go Green – only one has been singled out for censure. The one that questioned whether climate change is occurring. The Great Global Warming Swindle by maverick filmmaker Martin Durkin. [...]  The Ofcom report sends a clear message: climate experts are off limits. You can get your facts wrong; you can even use questionable graphs – but you must not be ‘unfair’ to The Experts. It is striking how similar the new Climate Blasphemy is to the old religious blasphemy.    Update: October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt:

British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...  Update: November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.  U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007) Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus."  UK environment secretary David Miliband said ‘those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century’ (October 6, 2006)  One truly "Nutty Professor" Prof Richard Parncutt (Musicology - Graz U - Austria) - a card carrying member of Amnesty International (go figure) - has called for the death sentence to be applied to "Deniers" - he has a list of them - for crimes against future humanity. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/ The daughter of a friend of mine was given a science homework assignment to write a piece on Global Warming - she submitted a skeptical piece and it was rejected by her science teacher who refused to mark it - apparently only pro-AGW would be acceptable. ??? Is this the "scientific method" at work ??? go figure ?  Some pithy comment by Prof. Tim Ball. Dr Tim Ball - former Professor of Geography - University of WinnipegPhD Climatology - London University.Canada Free Press 17 December 2008 - excerpt. http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/12/      for complete article & graphics. Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not

exist. They were wrong. They told us Artic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2

are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. The last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era.In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower? In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climate change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false." Ice cores provide the historic record and data collected at Mauna Loa the recent record. Both records are drastically modified to produce a smooth continuous curve with little variability. This was necessary to confirm the evidence falsely concluded from many 19th century measures that pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 ppm and didn't vary much. So how did they engineer the smooth curves and ignore the fact the 19th century record shows a global average of 335 ppm and considerable variability from year to year. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in the 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppm.These authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis. Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel. The EPA is planning to declare CO2 a toxic substance and a pollutant. Governments are preparing to create carbon taxes and draconian restrictions that will cripple economies for a completely non-existent problem. Credibility should have collapsed but political control and insanity prevail. - Prof. Tim Ball. Some possible regulations that may come about. I know the sounds of tumbrels when I hear them and its getting scarier by the day.We already have carbon taxes in some countries levied on cars, fuel and air travel.If we allow this to go unchallenged further restrictions will follow - they surely must as the initial restrictions (and for that matter any restriction) will fail to have any meaningful effect on the climate.So more and more unproductive and draconian actions will surely follow.This is just a sample of some of the suggestions I have seen in my research, many have already been mooted by politicians "testing the water" for response. Restrictions on car engine size, type and fuel usage.Fuel rationing.

Restriction of car ownership on the basis of need (and of course all politicians need cars - but you can bet not you or me).Ban or restriction on multiple car ownership.Driver training / retraining / re-licencing in eco-friendly driving methods.Travel restrictions / Compulsory use of public transport.Freight restrictions on "unnecessary" items. (Buy local.)Airfreight restrictions.European Union banning overflight and landing of commercial airliners from countries that do not charge their airlines a carbon tax - under consideration by the EU."Carbon Footprint" taxes.The imposition of energy / Carbon caps on individuals and businesses - this could go so far as mandatory electricity blackouts / stoppages when you exceed your quota.Ban on electrically heated hot water systems. (try living without hot water)Ban on patio heaters (under consideration by EU at present)Restrictions or bans on "unnecessary" fuel usage such as pleasure boating, motor racing and air shows. (Logically this should be extended to football, rugby, cricket etc. due to the large carbon footprint of the event created by the travel to and from the venue by spectators.)Restrictions on pet ownership "owning a pet is a luxury we can no longer afford".Switching off all street lighting.Ban on incandescent light bulbs - already in EU and USA & Canada in 2012 - you can't dim fluorescents - talk about spitting into the ocean - this is typical of the window dressing that you are likely to see.Food rationing. (Meat production is a major cause of "greenhouse gasses".)See Paul McCartney "Less Meat = Less Heat" also being considered by EUThe Vegans will have a field day with this one.UN control of agricultural production. (To foster less greenhouse gas products but ignores the laws of economics - will be catastrophic.)Making climate "denialism" a crime like "holocaust denialism"."Green Police" - and annual energy audits (being considered in the UK)http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/NewsFullStory.asp?ID=987Fines for not improving your energy efficiency - Green Police again.http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-cops-to-fine-wasteful-homeowners-businesses.htmlCarbon "Credit Cards" for every citizen - you will have to swipe this for all purchases of fuel, food, transportation, utilities etc. Run out - you must buy carbon credits (or starve ?). Being considered in UK. http://www.green-agenda.com/carboncurrency.htmlRestrictions on the internet to prevent it being used for skeptical anti-GW propaganda.etc. etc.And of course progressive punitive taxation levied on any of the above as a means of forcing rather than legislating compliance. How or in what form this might occur - I have no idea - but the fact that normally sane people are even considering such things is truly frightening. You can also see the pet peeves of various meddling busybodies manifest in these ideas. The economic implosion that will result from such meddling in the economy will have lethal consequences.And of course none of it will make any measurable difference. NONE ! Have you seen the slogan "SAVE THE PLANET KILL YOURSELF" hmmmmm.....

 If your really believe CO2 is harming the Earth - then stop breathing - you exhale between 250-500kg per annum at a concentration of 40000ppm - depending on size and degree of exercise. I did not make any of this up. Google any of the topics to check. If you do nothing the new world order of eco-Marxism is going to seriously meddle with your life. "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically." - Judi Bari - Earth First ! These people are quite happy to consider Fascism in defense of "green" objectives desirable. As H.L. Mencken noted "The urge to save humanity is always a false front for an urge to rule it !" What Should We Be Doing ? As far as CO2 goes - nothing - stop worrying about it - its not a problem ! If anything its one of the few good things we are doing for the planet. Increased CO2 is boosting agricultural production which removes agricultural pressure from natural habitat and boosts forest growth etc. <http://thegwpf.org/science-news/6086-co2-is-greening-the-planet-savannahs-soon-to-be-covered-by-forests.html><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2166470/Africas-savannahs-change-forests-turn-century-excess-CO2-atmosphere.html> Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be news to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, overdevelopment and ecosystem destruction. What explains this trend? The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-greened-planet/

However we do need to be addressing man's profligate use of resources, fossil fuel dependency, pollution, destruction of natural habitat and the like. In this I support most "green" initiatives. 

Again things are never as simple and clear cut as they might seem. The concept of renewable energy sources such as bio-diesel means displacing crop production for fuel production - at the very least the economic pressure of this will (and has) cause major food price increases which will hit the poor the hardest.In any case we would need to use almost 80% of all arable land to meet ALL our current energy needs so this concept is going nowhere fast.At present 45% of the USA's corn production is going to Ethanol production - turning food into fuel ("burning food") when people are starving is a crime against humanity.Currently 5% of the total world gain crop is being used to fuel motor vehicles - a study has suggested that this  could have prevented 192000 deaths by starvation in 2010 alone.

Ethanol produced from cellulose (Cellulosic Ethanol) - ie produced from plant waste, wood chips as well as "crops" such as Sawgrass which can be grown on marginal non-arable land will certainly help but using the waste product "mulch" normally returned to the soil will have some negative consequences. Consider solar and wind power versus fossil fuel and nuclear. Sun and wind power are capital and maintenance intensive per unit of power capability and cost of wind power is currently about 4 times that of fossil fuel produced electricity and solar about 8 times. In part this is because they are unreliable (not always available) and if they become a significant part of your "energy mix" then you need to have conventional plants to back them up. This means you have generating capacity to match the solar and wind inputs but you are not using it - this is wasteful of capital and the savings from using solar and wind are then only the marginal costs of production (ie the fuel only - everything else is there and paid for = "sunk costs") 

Studies of windfarms have shown their "load factor" (the percentage of potential output over time) is only 25% vs the 90-95% of conventional and Nuclear plants. Worse, older wind farms are showing a declining load factor down to 15% over 10 years (due to increasing breakdowns and maintenance) - which suggests that the projected 25 year lifespans are over-optimistic.  http://www.thegwpf.org/wear-tear-hits-wind-farm-output-economic-lifetime/http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf Studies have shown that you can use solar and wind and simply live with the fluctuation within your "reserve" power band which is typically 5-20% surplus production capability (to handle surge and outages) so solar and wind power start to become problematical from 3-5% of your energy "mix". http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Korchinski-Limits-of-Wind-Power.pdf A study in Holland showed that even the CO2  reduction by wind power became negative at about 3% - ie above 3% of the power supplied by wind (in Holland) started to produce more CO2  because of the inefficiencies of cycling the coal fired plants up and down to match the variances in output from the wind powered plants. This is because the backup capacity has to be running in "hot standby" mode - ticking over, producing CO2 but not electricity - so that they are available to take up the slack at a moments notice. This is dreadfully inefficient. This is basically underpinned by a study into how much "hot spinning standby" would need to be available - it is practically zero when wind and solar represent ony 3% of your supply but rises more or less linearly to 90% if wind and solar are at 100% of your supply - so forget wind and solar ever making up a significant portion of our energy mix as things stand now. Studies of coal fired plants have shown that a dip in output from 100% to 80% over a 1 hour cycle resulted in 0.3% to 0.5% more coal being consumed than had full power been maintained - this is attributed to hysterysis effects. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/subsidizing_co2.pdf  The following link is to a more contemporary Dutch study which shows the nett "lifetime costing" of windpower CO2 is in fact negative - ie the overall effect of wind power is more CO2 not less.  http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html

Almost all windpower studies to date have assumed that every kW of power generated by wind results in a concomitant coal fired reduction - without taking into account that the energy used to construct a wind turbine uses up 1.5 years of its output, the cost of hot standby etc. etc.

Almost all the projections are proving to be hopelessly optimistic - Britain's worst performing wind farm has only averaged 4.6% (that’s four point six) of its installed capacity since implementation.

The average for all US wind farms is 26.9% and for the EU only 13% - you won't catch me investing in wind power.

To illustrate how costly solar power is :- Under Ontario's "Renewable Energy" campaign the feed-in tariff for surplus production of solar power is 71.3c/kWh - for a commodity

that retails at 12.0c/kWh - The figure needs to be that high to attract investment in solar power - long term this is economic suicide. 

http://www.financialpost.com/Power+failure/3641528/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/when-it-comes-to-power-in-ontario-were-in-the-dark/article1750752/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068571/huhne-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-camerons-lousy-coalition/

Solar and Wind power are also environmentally invasive requiring about 5000 times the space of a coal fired plant. (And you still need the coal fired plant to back up the windmills.)

As with biofuels we would have to surrender an area the size of USA (total area spread around the world) to get 80% of our energy from wind power - at this level it is thought that the damage to the climate by interference with wind patterns would do more damage than climate change itself.

Because these are "Eco-friendly" projects the environmental impact study is either glossed over or by-passed completely in spite of the fact that a typical wind farm involves a hundred of these intrusive towers each with a 2500 Ton foundation, about a kilometer of road per tower and extensive power grids.

They chop birds & bats to pieces (even the endangered ones - seems they don't care) are noisy and universally detested by the neighbours. Property values diminish with the presence of wind farms.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/22/britains-wind-farm-scam-threatens-economic-recovery/#more-45663

Wind power is endangering species that have survived numerous ice ages, sea level changes etc - Global Warming poses no threat to them - Wind Turbines are positively lethal - refer the following link that suggest that environmentalists are in a state of denial over this inconvenient truth.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/ 

This by an Oxford professor of ornithology and an expert on species extinction.

I think solar and wind power are laudable alternatives and I would support government funding of pilot plants and further research. However wholesale investment in patently uneconomic processes is wasteful and shortsighted. When the technology / economics push us in that direction, I will willingly go there. Meddling with the economics with carbon taxation and the like will not change the untenable nature of the beast as it currently stands.

I predict a future scandal will be utility companies not using their wind turbines on the grounds that it is simply cheaper to generate directly from the "standby" power that they have available. I further predict that legislation will then be enacted to force them to do so.

As a final caveat on wind power there are over 14000 (fourteen thousand) derelict windmills littering the US landscape - mostly from the 70's & 80's windpower companies that failed to make an economic go of it. None of these sites have been cleaned up or rehabilitated - the absence of protesting Greens is unsurprising.

Note: I have been unable to verify the figure of 14000 windmills, I have uncovered 700 or so in just a few locations - so this figure may or may not be right.

http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

Nuclear power is expensive and unpopular (perceived as dangerous) and in any case our known Uranium reserves could only supply ALL our energy needs for 10 years. Unless we go the "fast breeder" route which presents major nuclear waste and safety issues - but I suspect we will ultimately be forced in this direction. (Fast breeders produce more fissile fuel than they use - unfortunately overproducing extractable weapons grade Uranium & Plutonium - I think it unlikely that environmentalists will view this as "renewable energy" even though it clearly is.)

What may surprise you (it surprised me) is that Nuclear power generation is the safest form of power generation there is on a deaths per TerraWatt-Hour basis (0.04) even allowing for actual deaths and projected mortality increases for those exposed at Chernobyl and Fukashima the next safest is Hydro (0.15) - ignoring the 130 000 persons that died in the China Banquio dam burst (there have been others).

At present Nuclear power is the only option we have to significantly reduce our Carbon footprint - However to achieve the Copenhagen target of a 50% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 would require the building of 12000 nuclear power stations - that's one per day for the next 40 years (and remember this will only achieve a 0.02°C reduction in temperature ??).

Long term the only likely prospect is the fusion process currently being investigated in the JET & TOKOMAK reactors. We need a global "Manhattan Project" to crack this problem. These projects do not get the public support they deserve as they are seen as "dangerous nuclear" - which they are not - these processes will not produce radioactive waste products (some component parts will become radioactive and will ultimately require disposal but this is nothing compared to the problem of spent fuel rods from conventional reactors).

Hydrogen based fuels & fuel cells are making good progress and need further support.

However the energy to make the Hydrogen fuel still has to come from somewhere (ie power stations) so without solving the primary energy problem will do little to help. (Nowhere on Earth can you mine Hydrogen - it can only be obtained by splitting it from water which (because of inefficiencies in processing) will require more energy than you get out.)

Driving an electric or Hydrogen powered car simply places the (increased) CO2 production somewhere else but does enable you to put your ecological halo on high beam (we need "SMUG" reduction laws for these people).

As a final kicker, environmentalists are fond of saying "all that comes out of a Hydrogen powered car's tailpipe is pure water" - true but water vapour is a 50 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. 

Ultimately the human population is to blame and if it keeps on growing along with its growth for energy - then according to Prof. Steven Hawking in just 700 years we will be standing shoulder to shoulder across the entire land mass of planet Earth and our projected energy use would cause the Earth to glow dull red. Something obviously has to give long before then.

Do the math's - South America's population has doubled in 20 years - if this were to continue (it can't !) they would occupy the entire landmass of the continent shoulder to shoulder in just 300 years, in 1000 years they would be a million deep and in 2000 years the population would be projecting off the face of the planet at lightspeed.

Such calculations - however ridiculous they might be - emphasizes that it is  the current population growth that is unsustainable and if we don't do something about it, mankind will be decimated by Mother Nature's old allies - War (over scarce resources, food & water), Famine (there will not be enough food), Pestilence (Diseases will run rampant through poverty stricken, overcrowded and malnourished populations) and of course Death just to round out the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Whilst I may be quoting Revelations - I have no faith in religion to save us from ourselves - quite the opposite appears to be true with religious leaders egging on their flock to procreate wantonly.

We have to curb the human population, anything else is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are facing many problems, CO2 is not one of them !   I fear we have pounced on this as a panacea for all our environmental problems - its not - it is simply serving as an expensive palliative distraction from much more pressing issues.

I have no desire to be taxed into poverty (both fiscally and energy impoverished) to fund what is essentially a "Green" fetish. As one observer noted, "If these people have their way, we are all going to end up sitting in the dark, starving and freezing."

In Closing

As I stated at the outset, this letter is not intended as a scientific treatise - it is primarily my way of keeping up with the debate and serves as my own record of investigation of various topics. It is my way of getting my head around the problem. If anything my review has led me to conclude that atmospheric CO2 is presently dangerously low (or at least was) dangerously low for life on Earth - our production of CO2 is one of the few good things we are doing for the environment.Calls to spend vast amounts of resources to reduce CO2 are not only misguided and wasteful they are dangerous. I hope this collage of opinions and references has given you food for thought - once again I suggest you come to your own conclusions - stop letting others draw conclusions for you - no one can be trusted with emotions running as high as they are on this issue. I can only hope that this will alert you to the fact that Global Warming is not a "settled science" and that there are convincing arguments and data on both sides of the issue. I trust that you will in future explore both sides of the argument - but I believe if you look at both sides objectively you will find the skeptical viewpoint wins hands down. The propaganda that would have you believe the matter is settled is clearly intended to inhibit you from exploring the opposing point of view - simply because if you did you might form a different opinion.In my book, when authority tells me not to look at something, this is a clear indication to me that I should. What are they hiding ? As regards the technical evidence for any of the foregoing, you will find it either by clicking on the web addresses / links (in blue - I check the links periodically but some may be broken - it happens.) or by Googling the title. You will of course find that one reference leads to another and very rapidly you will find more than you can cope with - good luck.In this process you will also stumble over thousands of pro-AGW articles - Caution - scan them carefully, if they do not contain scientific argument or scientific data (about 90% of them) - read no further you will learn nothing from these other than how to emotionalise and hype the issues.When you come across a nugget of proof of AGW - conduct a web search for the skeptical opinion on that proof - you will almost certainly find convincing evidence to refute it.You will also find that after each new piece of contrary information a slew of damning articles and bloggs appear to denounce the scientist, his qualifications, his sanity, funding, senility, parentage, intelligence etc. etc. Seldom however do they explore the data or the issues raised. By all means read them but check and double check the story - in most cases you will find it to be "knee jerk" reaction to "climate heresy" - in which case ask yourself - Why ?? 

What you will not find is pro AGW articles that present any alternative or suggest that you explore the "other side" - this should alert you to the unscientific nature of the beast. This whole debacle has seriously dented my faith in the "scientific method", there are an awful lot of scientists out there practicing some very dubious science. I don't care if they mean well - it is still bad science. I will admit to having fallen into the trap of being selective in my choice of articles and supportive data as a counter to the selectiveness of the alarmists. I have deliberately chosen to come down heavily in favour of skeptical arguments - however I caution you to take any suspicion this might raise and apply that same doubt to pro-AGW articles if you note them to be completely one-sided - which they invariably are. I have tried to ensure my facts are accurate - there is a lot of conflicting information out there - and I have amended this from time to time to try and keep abreast of new or more reliable information. Should you find any glaring errors feel free to advise me of the error of my ways. I make no claim to being "right" on this issue. I wish only to point out certain fundamental flaws in the arguments of those that do. Do your own review or get advice (from people you trust personally) from either side of the issue and decide accordingly. I will also admit that for almost every one of the above arguments there is a counter argument (with varying degrees of validity) which only shows that the whole issue is an awful long way from being "a settled science" - as the alarmists would have you believe.I will also admit that some of the opinions and arguments presented above are simplifications of really complex phenomena. Anyone who claims (and most of the alarmists do) their model accurately reflects the dynamic of climate is making the mistake of oversimplifying the problem. However the fundamental facts - based on the hard laws of physics cannot be changed or ignored. The most damning evidence against the AGW hypothesis is the IR saturation of CO2, the 95% effect of water vapour and the non-existence of the upper Troposphere "hot spot” and the absence of the "radiative forcing" signature.To date no model or hypothesis based on Physics and supported by any physical observation has explained how additional CO2 can possibly be responsible given these facts.Temperatures have risen and so has CO2 - accepted - but this does not constitute proof - at face value it looks like solid (but circumstantial) evidence - however there are some insurmountable problems in using the laws of physics to prove this. If the physics will not yield then CO2 is not causing global warming. No amount of correlated data survives the attack of a single scientific fact ! The "Overwhelming Scientific Evidence" touted by the alarmists is just simply a mountain of the same or similar correlated data which does not stand up to objective scrutiny that this is proof of AGW - it's not.Similarly a mountain of data supporting the Global Warming trend is in no way proof that CO2 or man is the cause of it ! 

It seems that CO2 being the cause of hot weather is as likely as ice cream sales causing hot weather - these two possibilities are statistically provable by the same method which is of course demonstrably false. In any case I don't have to prove that man is not causing global warming - I'm not asking you for trillions of tax dollars to combat the problem. But I do insist that the alarmists prove their point before they can have your money and mine to combat this imaginary "problem"! I believe they have failed miserably. If like me you come to the conclusion that we are all being hoodwinked - albeit by well meaning people whose principal desire is to save the planet - please do something to stop this lunacy - forward this article to friends and associates. "The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis" - Edmund Burke A final caveat: Don't confuse the poisonous pollutant Carbon Monoxide with Carbon Dioxide (plant food) and don't conflate the CO2 AGW issue with other environmental issues such as pollution and our profligate use of resources. These are important but largely unrelated issues and are often included in the debate - these should be considered "Red Herrings" in the CO2 debate. Conflating other important environmental issues with CO2 / AGW will ultimately be detrimental to these other issues when the Global Warming alarmism is proven to be false. The general public will throw up their hands and say "Here we go again, you can't believe anything these people tell you !"One should not cry wolf - unless there really is a wolf present - end of homily. A number of prominent environmentalists are becoming increasingly concerned at the hijacking of their movements by global warming alarmists. If the Sun is getting hotter then we can expect the climate to continue to warm up in future - stop blaming CO2 for this - the physics just doesn't add up. This is an important issue as world governments are about to embark on the most expensive solution that man has ever considered for a problem that in all likelihood does not exist."There is no way whatsoever that the costly mitigation measures will have a meaningful effect on the world’s climate."  -  Professor Will Alexander They are going to raise taxation and then squander it on meaningless actions. They will over-regulate your lifestyle and destroy your way of life and well-being while accomplishing absolutely nothing. This is a big deal - do something about it ! Forward this to friends and acquaintances. "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." Prof. Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology MIT) During his testimony to the US Senate. 

I leave the final word to IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri who said "If the IPCC wasn't there, why would anyone be worried about climate change" ???  Think about that........ Regards,                 Ken Irwin "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" - Galileo Galilei "The important thing is not to stop questioning"  - Albert Einstein "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong."  - Albert Einstein "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - HL Mencken. Please forgive the extensive "quotation mining" but I think the comments of eminent persons always deserves consideration. Some further references debunking alarmist claims :- Polar Bears are being killed by GW - No they're not !http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1f54c31d-c4d0-4d8f-ac6e-53716736044c http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/nst-letters-al-gore-lied-about-drowning-polar-bears/ Kilimanjaro's ice cap is melting because of GW - no it isn't ! http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html All the worlds glaciers are melting because of GW - No they're not !http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563714/Stubborn-glaciers-fail-to-retreat-awkward-polar-bears-continue-to-multiply.html  Severe weather is increasing because of GW - No it isn't !http://www.climatechangefraud.com/editorials/3854-global-warming-alarmists-out-in-cold People are dying because of global Warming - No they're not !http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1534.htm Shouting "Fire" in the global greenhouse

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/falsealarm.htmlhttp://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/tag/climate-change/ A partial list of published books which cover the subject :-Ronald Bailey (ed.), Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet, 2000, chapter 2 and chapter 7.Robert C. Balling, Jr., The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, 1992.Robert L. Bradley, Jr., Julian Simon and the Triumph of Energy Sustainability, 2000.Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, and Freiderick Seitz, Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem, 1990.Jay H. Lehr (ed.), Standard Handbook of Environmental Science, Health, and Technology, 2000, chapter 22, section 1.Jay H. Lehr (ed.), Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, 1992.Robert Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann (eds.),The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy, 1999.Patrick J. Michaels, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, 2004.Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr., The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, 2000.Thomas Gale Moore, Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming, 1998.Kendra Okonski (ed.), Adapt or Die: The Science, Politics and Economics of Climate Change, 2003.Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?, 1993S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, 1997S. Fred Singer (ed.), Global Climate Change, 1989Aaron Wildavsky, But Is it True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues, 1995.S.H. Wittwer, Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide, 1995. Related Links: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3689/Australian-PM-Rudd-warns-skeptics-are-too-dangerous-to-ignore-and-are-holding-the-world-to-ransom--Climate-Depot-Respondshttp://sppiblog.org/news/lord-monckton-replies-to-australias-canting-ranting-prime-minister#more-438http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htmhttp://www.nov55.com/gbwm.htmlhttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org/Breakdown Of   Key Points Debunking Cilmate Fears Analysis of how Hollywood   Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids   Analysis of Costly "Solutions" to Global Warming Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference NEW SENATE CAP-AND-TRADE BILL CALLED ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN' Debunking   The So-Called   'Consensus' On Global Warming Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed) Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus' Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other" Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect' Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype' The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006) http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Global-Warming-Swindle---Exposed-by-Respected-Scientists/961696http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5568http://www.seafriends.org.nzhttp://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htmhttp://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htmhttp://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid3.htmhttp://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid4.htmhttp://sciencewatch.com/dr/fbp/2009/09aprfbp/09aprfbpRod/http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ocean-acidification-another-nail-in-a-junk-science-coffin/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28116http://www.climatechangefacts.info/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.htmlhttp://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/thanet-offshore-wind-farm.htmhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/us-eu-join-fight-over-ontarios-green-energy-plan/article1736573/?cmpid=rss1http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/climate-wars-eu-threatens-rest-of-the-world-with-flight-ban/#more-10586http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.htmlhttp://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/the-royal-society-still-embarrassing-science/http://www.nzclimatescience.org/

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/04/kermit-coal-book-reveals-how-world-s-top-brands-greenwash-publichttp://www.climatedepot.com/a/17914/APs-Seth-Borenstein-at-it-again-Claims-global-warming-means-more-Antarctic-ice--Meet-the-new-consensus-the-opposite-of-the-old-consensushttp://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Korchinski-Limits-of-Wind-Power.pdfhttp://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/carbon-markets-on-a-verge-of-collapse-require-immediate-rescue-by-nations-suggests-un-panelhttp://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#more-10322   An Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The Summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled’, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the 'precautionary principle' because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change", as illustrated in the November 27th UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

This open letter was signed by :Don Aitkin, Ph.D., Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, AustraliaSyun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S. William J.R. Alexander, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000Bjarne Andresen, Ph.D., physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkGeoff L. Austin, Ph.D., FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D., environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, CanadaErnst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, GermanySonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D., Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journalChris C. Borel, Ph.D., remote sensing scientist, U.S.Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, CanadaRobert M. Carter, Ph.D., Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, AustraliaIan D. Clark, Ph.D., Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, CanadaRichard S. Courtney, Ph.D., climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.Willem de Lange, Ph.D., Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New ZealandDavid Deming, Ph.D. (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.Freeman J. Dyson, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, AustraliaHans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The NetherlandsRobert H. Essenhigh, Ph.D., E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.Christopher Essex, Ph.D., Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, CanadaDavid Evans, Ph.D., mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia William Evans, Ph.D., Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.Stewart Franks, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, AustraliaR. W. Gauldie, Ph.D., Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at ManoaLee C. Gerhard, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, GermanyAlbrecht Glatzle, Ph.D., sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, ParaguayFred Goldberg, Ph.D., Adj. Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, SwedenVincent Gray, Ph.D., expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001', Wellington, New ZealandWilliam M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado

State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S. Howard Hayden, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western AustraliaCraig D. Idso, Ph.D., Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USAAndrei Illarionov, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, RussiaZbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, PolandJon Jenkins, Ph.D., MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaWibjorn Karlen, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, SwedenOlavi Käärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, EstoniaJoel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.David Kear, Ph.D., FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New ZealandMadhav Khandekar, Ph.D., former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’’s Commission for ClimatologyJan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The NetherlandsProfessor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsSalomon Kroonenberg, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsHans H.J. Labohm, Ph.D., economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The NetherlandsThe Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.Douglas Leahey, Ph.D., meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, CanadaDavid R. Legates, Ph.D., Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.Marcel Leroux, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRSBryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New ZealandWilliam Lindqvist, Ph.D., consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A.J. (Tom) van Loon, Ph.D., Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam

Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science EditorsAnthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.Richard Mackey, Ph.D., Statistician, AustraliaHorst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, GermanyJohn Maunder, Ph.D., Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, Ph.D., international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, CanadaJohn McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, AustraliaOwen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New ZealandFred Michel, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, CanadaFrank Milne, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, CanadaAsmunn Moene, Ph.D., former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, NorwayAlan Moran, Ph.D., Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, AustraliaNils-Axel Morner, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, SwedenLubos Motl, Ph.D., physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech RepublicJohn Nicol, Ph.D., physicist, James Cook University, AustraliaMr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, CanadaJames J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.Cliff Ollier, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western AustraliaGarth W. Paltridge, Ph.D., atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, AustraliaR. Timothy Patterson, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, CanadaAl Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.Ian Plimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, AustraliaBrian Pratt, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, CanadaHarry N.A. Priem, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope GeosciencesAlex Robson, Ph.D., Economics, Australian National UniversityColonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force

R.G. Roper, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The NetherlandsRob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., CanadaTom V. Segalstad, Ph.D., (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, NorwayGary D. Sharp, Ph.D., Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite ServiceL. Graham Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, CanadaRoy W. Spencer, Ph.D., climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, Ph.D., former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological InstituteDick Thoenes, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, Ph.D., PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Ph.D., geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New ZealandLen Walker, Ph.D., power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, AustraliaEdward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.Stephan Wilksch, Ph.D., Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, GermanyBoris Winterhalter, Ph.D., senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, FinlandDavid E. Wojick, Ph.D., P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.Raphael Wust, Ph.D., Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, AustraliaA. Zichichi, Ph.D., President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.

And finally a little humor... Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving,and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.That's orbiting at ninety miles a second, so its reckoned,a sun that is the source of all our power.The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see,are moving at a million miles a day.

In an outer spiral arm at forty thousand miles an hour,in a galaxy we call the milky way. Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light years thick,but out by us it's just three thousand light years wide.We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point,We go round every two hundred million years.And our galaxy is only one of millions, of billions,in this amazing and expanding universe. The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,in all of the directions it can whiz.As fast as it can go,the speed of light, you know,Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,how amazingly unlikely is your birth.And pray that there's intelligent life, somewhere up in space,because there's bugger all down here on earth !                             Terry Gilliam                                                                                                             Monty Python