The REAL global warming

[Black Swan]

Real Global Warming Disaster
Christopher Booker
RRP: £16.99
Publisher: CONTINUUM TRADE PUBLISHING
Publication Date : 15/10/2009
Hardback
In stock, usually despatched within 24 hours.

Guardian Bookshop Notes:
A perceptive and subtle study of the hysteria surrounding the issue of global warming and the thesis that it is a man-made phenomenon with the Western nations and giant corporations largely to blame. Based on scientific fact, Booker and North's aim is to demonstrate man-made global warming is, in fact, a myth.

Publisher's description:
Focuses on the mother of all environmental scares: global warming. This book interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged.
http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9781441110527

 

[Black Swan]

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Panic over:

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill. :whistling

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

 

[montmorencyt2w]

There's a lot of interesting stuff on CC/AGW generally, and this latest fuss in particular here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

Summary of the emails (with links) here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
(with later updates)

But see the later articles as well.

For something a bit heavier, this is Steve McIntyre's site:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

SM is one of the people who challenged and discredited the "hockey stick graph" of Michael Mann (and used heavily at one time by the IPCC but later withdrawn).

 

[maiden22]

Black Swan, I like you more and more all the time. I'm delighted to learn that you are no more susceptible to climate scammers than you are to forex scammers.

For the believers, I genuinely do not mean any disrespect. However, the anthropogenic climate change theory is a lie. Not only is it a lie, it is one so transparent that it takes considerable stupidity, an astonishing lack of curiosity, or remarkable intellectual dishonesty to believe it. In the future people will struggle to comprehend how such a delusion took hold in an age that prides itself on its scepticism and rationality.

Again, I mean no disrespect. However, for all traders who give credit to the absurd notion of man-made climate change, please PM me urgently. I have some excellent strategies for going long on tulip bulbs, and a great tip on a little known South Sea stock that's going to be HUGE. Very reasonable rates, and a carbon offset option as well.

 

[dcraig1]

Black Swan, I like you more and more all the time. I'm delighted to learn that you are no more susceptible to climate scammers than you are to forex scammers.

For the believers, I genuinely do not mean any disrespect. However, the anthropogenic climate change theory is a lie. Not only is it a lie, it is one so transparent that it takes considerable stupidity, an astonishing lack of curiosity, or remarkable intellectual dishonesty to believe it. In the future people will struggle to comprehend how such a delusion took hold in an age that prides itself on its scepticism and rationality.

Again, I mean no disrespect. However, for all traders who give credit to the absurd notion of man-made climate change, please PM me urgently. I have some excellent strategies for going long on tulip bulbs, and a great tip on a little known South Sea stock that's going to be HUGE. Very reasonable rates, and a carbon offset option as well.

Truly amazing to come across such a well put position from a denier. I'm sure that if you forward it to one of the national scientific bodies that affirm man made global climate change, you will be able to persuade at least one of them to change their position and join the ranks of those scientific bodies that dispute AGW. You see, the latter list is currently empty, the last hold out being the American Association of Petroleum Geologists which retracted it's former position in 2007.

Now, what was that you were saying about rationality?

List of scientific bodies that affirm human-caused global climate change

*Academy of Sciences Malaysia
*Academy of Science of South Africa
*American Association for the Advancement of Science
*American Astronomical Society
*American Chemical Society
*American Geophysical Union
*American Institute of Physics
*American Meteorological Society
*American Physical Society
*American Quaternary Association
*Australian Academy of Science
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Brazilian Academy of Sciences
*Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Caribbean Academy of Sciences
*Chinese Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Geosciences Union
*European Science Foundation
*French Academy of Sciences
*German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission
*Indian National Science Academy
*Indonesian Academy of Sciences
*InterAcademy Council
*International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*Mexican Academy of Sciences
*Network of African Science Academies
*Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
*Royal Irish Academy
*Royal Society of Canada
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Russian Academy of Sciences
*Science Council of Japan

 

[SAINT]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alarmists-out-in-cold/story-0-1225704688703

Here's a fellow Aussie getting involved.

 

[dcraig1]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alarmists-out-in-cold/story-0-1225704688703

Here's a fellow Aussie getting involved.

Is that the most authoritative source you can produce - a hack writing for a Murdoch paper? Half of the items on his shopping list are straw men. The rest is just plain wrong. I'll stick with the science thanks.

 

[maiden22]

Hi DCraig,

Well I wasn't really advancing any arguments. It was intended to be a provocative statement post and as such I think it was rather well put.

I'm surprised that you place such emphasis on consensus (especially given that the "consensus" is entirely imaginary). Leaving that aside, consensus does not prove anything, as any scientist should be able to tell you.

Let us try a little experiment. Suppose that all of the bodies you cut and pasted from somewhere were impressed by my bravery, and set out to discover its source. They assemble some computer models of astonishing sloppiness and meet at an international conference to discuss their findings.

They unanimously agree that my bravery is due to the fact that I have BALLS OF STEEL. Literally, knackers made of hard, stainless iron alloy. This would not make it so. The consensus would be very far from correct. My bravery could stem from any number of sources, such as my massive dust habit.

Consider other notable facts that have at times been the subject of consensus - for example, the geocentric theory. My consensus list would for this would be shorter but rather more comprehensive than yours. It would read thus:

Everybody.

 

[dcraig1]

Hi DCraig,

Well I wasn't really advancing any arguments.

You got that part right at least.

I'm surprised that you place such emphasis on consensus (especially given that the "consensus" is entirely imaginary). Leaving that aside, consensus does not prove anything, as any scientist should be able to tell you.

Amazing that those who don't know what they are talking about love to deride "consensus" when in fact what they are referring to is informed and expert opinion.

Let us try a little experiment. Suppose that all of the bodies you cut and pasted from somewhere were impressed by my bravery, and set out to discover its source. They assemble some computer models of astonishing sloppiness and meet at an international conference to discuss their findings.

They unanimously agree that my bravery is due to the fact that I have BALLS OF STEEL. Literally, knackers made of hard, stainless iron alloy. This would not make it so. The consensus would be very far from correct. My bravery could stem from any number of sources, such as my massive dust habit.

Noise.

Consider other notable facts that have at times been the subject of consensus - for example, the geocentric theory. My consensus list would for this would be shorter but rather more comprehensive than yours. It would read thus: Everybody.

You should well know that a geocentric view of the Universe was fundamentally religious.

Fortunately religion has very little influence over science these days, though some retarded fundamentalists would have us return to a medieval mode of thought if they could get their way.

 

[maiden22]

You got that part right at least.



Amazing that those who don't know what they are talking about love to deride "consensus" when in fact what they are referring to is informed and expert opinion.



Noise.



You should well know that a geocentric view of the Universe was fundamentally religious.

Fortunately religion has very little influence over science these days, though some retarded fundamentalists would have us return to a medieval mode of thought if they could get their way.

Consensus often appears or is presented as informed or expert opinion. Such things are frequently wrong.

What you refer to as noise is in fact a simple, logical demonstration of an obvious truth - that people believing (or equally, stating that they believe) something does not alter fact.

Oddly enough, the manmade global warming scam is very similar to a religion. It is loudly and shrilly asserted to be true, despite no empirical evidence. Heretics are vilified and persecuted. Ironically, this thread was started with a reference to trading carbon credits. What are these if not the modern equivalent of papal indulgences?

Since you seem to like lists so well, here is another one for your collection. It is a selection of scientists who remain unconvinced. Admittedly, it was taken from Wikipedia, which doubtless means that much of its content is a deliberate lie.

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased
Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites (red: UAH; green: RSS)

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[7]

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[8]

* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[9]

[edit] Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[10]
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[11] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[12]

[edit] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]
* William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[27]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]
* Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[32]
* Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[33]
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[34]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[35]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36][37] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[38]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[40]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[41]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[42]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[43]

[edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

* Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[44]

* Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[45]
* Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[46]
* John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[47]
* Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[48]
* William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[49]
* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[50]
* Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[51]
* Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[52] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[53]

[edit] Believe global warming will not be significantly negative

Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

* Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[54]
* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[55]
* Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."[56]


And finally, stop being so po-faced about things. Your earnest dullness would have the hind legs off a wallaby.

 

[maiden22]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Click the link for another huge list - 700 sceptical scientists apparently. First sceptical quote is from a Nobel Prize winner (a real one, for phsyics, not that one that they give out to anybody who isn't George Bush).

Doesn't mean that much to me per se, but you seem to like lots of names arranged in a column, so enjoy!

 

[maiden22]

What would this idiot know about it?

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

Must be in the pay of BIG OIL/TOBACCO/ETC (insert or delete as the whim takes you).

 

[maiden22]

What do you reckon, maybe the Camorra has got to this guy?

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature, not mankind is ruling the climate. “I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming,” Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

 

[maiden22]

This numpty may claim to be a scientist, but he wouldn't be let anywhere near a reputable body such as the IPCC. Oh wait...

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, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.

“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!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.

 

[maiden22]

This could go on a while - and, given that I'm not checking any charts again until 4.00, it may well do. But the lesson to learn is that pasting lists is not clever, that consensus does not exist and, even if it did, it would not prove anything.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

And another interesting website:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/GreatestFraud.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/Testimony.htm

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/01/29/the-gore-that-came-in-from-the-cold/

(and an old but juicy gossipy snippet about Al Gore:-

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14917

)


Meanwhile, yesterday on The Guardian online's "comment is free", even George Monbiot was apologising for having taken too much on trust what the warming-alarmist scientists had been saying, without ever questioning it. This in the wake of the embarrassing CRU UEA email/document leak (or "hack" as they are claiming). Monbiot even called on Phil Jones to resign.

Having said that, today's Grauniad is playing that story down again with a tiny little article on an inside page, basically just parroting UEA's official line; no questioning; no serious investigative journalism at all. Read all about it; get your Pravda here....


Just goes to show you can't trust anyone:


Car salesmen, estate agents, bankers, "traders" selling "winning systems"; politicians; media hacks; climate modellers....

 

[maiden22]

Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.

Possibly, although I read that they had been censoring postings that objected to the mainstream (IPCC) view on global warming. I haven't spent much time on "comment is free" for some reason, although I read the printed Guardian most days. Actually I don't think GM is all bad by any means ... I used to be something of an admirer, but he's certainly had his blinkers on on this one - he listened to the scientists who told him what he wanted to believe and didn't question, like a proper journalist should do. At least he's had the grace to admit this. Whether he will do the full U-turn remains to be seen. I somehow doubt it. The thing is, some of the things the "warmists" say we should be doing, I actually agree with; just not for the reasons they give. And if warming really isn't the immediate threat that they claim, this is all to the good. It means we can actually concentrate on some of the more pressing and genuine environmental and humanitarian concerns, such as actual pollution(*), and shortage of clean drinking water in the third world, etc.

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...te-spoof-from-minnesotans-for-global-warming/

EDIT Check out the other videos further down that link also.

 

[maiden22]

LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.

I think we're on the same wavelength here. I'd worry about old-technology nuclear fission power stations ... waste, health and safety are still real issues here, and it still has the baggage of being associated with nuclear weapons. I think there can be little doubt that it was more or less a front for being able to develop nuclear weapons in the past; no one back then cared for carbon-free energy, and oil and coal were still cheap, and nuclear power was never as cheap as it had promised to be.

Whether the "new generation" fission reactors (which are supposed to burn up most of the fuel rods and not leave so much waste as well as being super-efficient) will be any good remains to be seen. I'm moderately excited about fusion in the long-run, but doubt if I will live to see it! (My son is hoping to get a job in one of the European fusion research places; if he gets it, it could be a job for life ).

I don't think wind-power is going anywhere, except perhaps for one-off cases on a small scale, and effective solar seems to be nearly as far off as fusion. Tidal may have more going for it, but is bound to introduce environmental worries.

We should be conserving our oil though, not because of CO2/GW (although there are genuine pollution issues like diesel particulates and no doubt other nasty stuff), but because it's so damn useful for other things (e.g. plastics, etc) for which there really is no alternative, e.g.

http://www.petrochemistry.net/flowchart/flowchart.htm

[OK, you oil guys, please send the fee to the usual bank account ... ]