SOLAR PANELS

At the risk of appearing obsessed haha, here's some of the many scientists who do not fit into the supposed consensus... there are actually very few figures behind the climate change scam, I could name them later if I haven't bored you all to death before then.

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by:

1.Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2.Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
3.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.
4.J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
5.Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
6.Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
7.Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
8.Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
9.Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
10.Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
11.Joe B'di, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
12.Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
13.David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
14.M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
15.Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
16.Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
17.Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
18.Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
19.James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
20.Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
21.Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
22.Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
23.George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
24.Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
25.Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
26.Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
27.Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
28.Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
29.Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
30.Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
31.Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
32.Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
33.Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
34.Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
35.James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
36.David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
37.James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
38.Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
39.Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
40.Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
41.Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
42.David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
43.Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
44.Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
45.Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
46.Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
47.R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
48.David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
49.Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
50.Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
51.Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
52.Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
53.Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
54.Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
55.Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
56.William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
57.Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
58.Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
59.William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
60.Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
61.Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
62.James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
63.Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
64.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.
65.Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
66.Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
67.Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
68.Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
69.Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
70.Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
71.Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
72.Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
73.David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
74.Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
75.Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
76.William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
77.Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
78.Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
79.Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
80.Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

80.Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
81.Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
82.Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
83.Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
84.Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
85.Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
86.Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
87.Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
88.Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
89.Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
90.Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
91.Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
92.Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
93.John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
94.Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.
95.David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
96.James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
97.Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
98.Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
99.Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
100.R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
101.Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
102.Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
103.Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
104.Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
105.Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
106.Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
107.George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
108.Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
109.Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
110.Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
111.Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
112.Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta "Distinguished Agrologist"), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
113.Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
114.John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
115.Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
116.Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
117.Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
118.L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
119.Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
120.Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
121.Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
122.Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
123.George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
124.Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
125.Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
126.Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
127.Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
128.Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
129.Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
130.A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
131.Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
132.Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
133.Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
134.Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
135.James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
136.Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
137.Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
138.David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
139.Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
140.Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
141.Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A."

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by

Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUSSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural bioloist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologst
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

More later for masochists :)

I'm not British Cat, so I don't know anything about any salt debates in the Sun. I was among other things thinking of the fact that it once was an established "fact" among nutritionists that eating fat make you fat. People were eating cereals with 0.01% fat and 35% sugar thinking it would aid weight loss.

Anyway like I said I have personally been mostly convinced by the evidence for man made climate change. Just saying that "established facts" can sometimes be wrong for long periods of time, and political and corporate interests can skew science.

There's no doubt that a big majority of all scientist currently think that human activity has affected the climate.

Trevh, my source is the film made by Al Gore, an Inconvenient Truth.  I will lend it to you if you like.

Seriously, that is some interesting stuff, thanks.  I am not well versed enough to cough up the counter arguments but I will have a look later and see what I can find.  The strength of the scientific community is in its ability and keenness to constantly challenge theories and assertions and it is this process of challenge that gives me confidence in scientific consensus.

I thought most of the arguments against mmcc came from politicians rather than the scientific community so you have raised awareness In this regard.  Interesting....

what were the chances that the flat earthers wouldn't end up on this thread?

1.01 if you go through those names one by one you'll find

a) a load of phds from joke universities
b) a load of phds in totally unrelated subjects
c) a load of people getting paid off one way or another by the oil industry and allied trades.

man made climate change is happening and it's generally accepted by actual, real, proper scientists as opposed to the tin foil helmet and brown envelope alliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

UK solar panels.
Now that is an oxymoron up there with military intelligence.

Unbelievable Viva! You call me a flat earther but offer nothing of fact. Please supply evidence of your real and proper scientists, and yes please go through the lists I have posted and post up any names you find that appear suspicious.

The only reason you think there is a consensus is because you are told so by MSM and in particular the BBC Government propaganda machine.

You won't take my word for that I know, so all I ask is that when ever you read a report concerning AGW, take a few minutes to read all the responses to that report from concerned citizens who bother to comment about it. You will see that in more than 90% of reports, more than 90% of responses are from realists who do not believe in AGW theory.

As time goes by we will see politicians breaking rank and that will have a snowball effect. Coupled with cooling global temperatures for decades to come, AGW theory is a dead theory walking. Warmists, anti-capitalists and Green Peas activists will have to find another method of creating the New World Order based on socialist principles that they religiously strive for, because they sure won't achieve it through the attempted demonisation of essential Carbon Dioxide.

I am certain because the real science says so and that's all that matters to me. There is no visible signal in global temperature data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Cat, if you studied the facts as I have done as presented by non government funded scientists I am absolutely certain that you too would no longer believe in man made global warming theory. Anyone with a logical brain could not possibly believe. Politicians are the ones peddling the theory, but as said some are now breaking rank.

The very science behind MMGW theory is flawed, so much so that real scientists refer to it as junk science theory. AGW theory relies on expensive computer models programmed with voodoo science and exagerated effects of CO2, under estimated effects of water vapour and clouds, and magic the whole thing together with exagerated positive feedback mechanisms. Proper scientists - physicists, chemists, astro physicists etc became involved when their disgust of this voodoo junk science being peddled to the world as fact became overwhelming.

Have you read the Climategate emails, I could post up a nice but lengthy summary and you can read or not, up to you.


But beware of Wikipedia entries as you posted above, as U.K. Government scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley has turned Wikipedia into a global warming movement!

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

This will bore most people to death, but for those that may be interested here's a nice summary of the climategate emails.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

I repeat my basic question to you trevh.
Why does this subject seem to push so many of your buttons.
Surely there are many examples of self seving Govt propaganda campaigns, both now and in history, that were more harmful to society.
Or am I wrong on this ?
Are you more upset over climate change than ( say) US middle east policy, as but one example?
Or more upset than over Govt. coddling up to bankers who have wrought havoc on the world economy through greed and incompetence ?
The list is endless.
Why climate change in particular ?
Both sides of the so -called scientific debate probably contain many glaring "white " lies, but the very least you can say is that it has increased the general public's awareness that they are only temporary residents of the world and owe a duty of care to future residents not to abuse it.

It pushes my buttons Frog because it's nonsense. The other things you mentioned do too.

You and others would be shocked and horrified at the amount of money changing hands through so called carbon trading schemes (money exchanged for thin air) and the amount of fraud involved. It's all about the money as always, the BBC now has it's huge pension fund tied up in carbon trading, even the PM's father-in-law is at it, he receives hundreds of thousands in wind farm subsidies.

The UK government has signed us up to a legally binding carbon reduction plan (other countries are not so gullible) that involves companies (especially power generating companies) having to buy millions of pounds worth of carbon credits from the likes of India, yes millions of pounds in exchange for pieces of paper/credit notes! The fraud is immense, the actual emissions remain the same of course and the public get fleeced, we are the mugs paying for it.

Here's an insight to the cost of the climate change act, as written by Peter Lilley when Ed Milliband was minister for cc...

6)     Can you confirm that the costs of the Climate Change Act amount to between £16,000 and £20,000 for every UK household?
7)     Can you confirm that the revised cost estimates still exclude transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020), ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon efficient technology available?
8)      Can you confirm that although the costs of the Act will fall on UK households the benefits will largely accrue to the rest of the world?
9)     Can you confirm that the Climate Change Act binds UK governments to pursue the targets regardless of whether other countries follow our lead (or indeed whether the climate warms or not)?


http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/article.aspx?id=10&ref=1421

Trevh, I'm not in a position to either dispute or verify your statement.  I am confident that the scientific community will not leave inaccurate science unchallenged and your posts demonstrate that the challenge is there.

I am however skeptical about conspiracy theories which are usually platforms for somebody to get some temporary fame and fortune.  I can't see what motive there is for dreaming up a story like this, there are so many other genuine environmental issues (pollution, over population, over fishing, deforestation etc) that could be used so why create a fake?

It's called money cat - as Trev so eloquently put it 'You and others would be shocked and horrified at the amount of money changing hands' and it's the poor UK consumer that is funding this giant fraud.

As for your assertion that the scientific community will not leave inaccurate science unchallenged that is absolutely true of those not corrupted by the money. Unfortunately their views are to all intents and purposes buried and their reputations ridiculed - (see viva el presidente's rubbishing of the scientists who were signatories above)

I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

I can't see what motive there is for dreaming up a story like this


Motives aplenty Cat. The general money angle is very plausible. And for any scientists needing grants, research money etc. some sort of global warming angle is almost compulsory now.  My father was a research scientist, and he and his colleagues spent much of their time obsessing about how they were going to get funding for their next research project. For scientists, research funding is the blood that pumps through everything. Without it, they're left without a job.   Exploring some aspect of global warming is an almost surefire way of getting funding, so it's not surprising that so many scientists sign up to it.

And I'm very surprised that you're so unquestioning of the 'scientific consensus' - which, by the way, isn't as much of a consensus as we're told by the BBC etc..   The scientific consensus has been wrong a number of times in the past, until one or two people came up to prove why a firmly-held view was, actually, nonsense.


Personally I'm not as sure about the absence of man-made global warming as Trev. It seems that both sides can put up some decent arguments - although the 'deniers' do seem to have more facts behind them.   However, I certainly can't see that it's as clear-cut as the global-warmists claim.   And there's no doubt that we're already putting huge amounts of money into 'fixing global warming' that we could be using to bolster our flood defenses instead. Not to mention the extra costs in our fuel bills.  These costs are set to spiral in the coming years, so it would be nice if we could be sure there's some substance to global-warming.

I am naturally a very questioning person but when it comes to technical matters that I don't understand I am not in a position to question.  I don't see that my trust in scientific consensus has been breached here, Trevh's evidence just goes to show that the community is constantly challenging itself and all I've been guilty of is believing that a matter had been largely accepted in fact is still being resolved.

bilbobaggins : It's called money cat... and it's the poor UK consumer that is funding this giant fraud. 

Yes, which is the reason why as you rightly say Cooee "Not to mention the extra costs in our fuel bills.  These costs are set to spiral in the coming years, so it would be nice if we could be sure there's some substance to global-warming".

Energy bills are soaring, the reason being that energy suppliers are being monumentally hammered by green taxes, namely carbon permits that they are being forced to buy from the likes of India (millions of pounds in exchange for carbon credits) so that UK government can claim to be lowering the country's CO2 emissions, even though emissions will remain the same in reality. Energy companies pass these costs on to the consumer, under the guise of increased overheads. We, the mugs, fund the racket, meanwhile India can't believe it's luck and will offer as many carbon credits as the gullible Brits will buy, while laughing all the way to the bank.

Cat : I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

I don't know where to begin to try and explain Cat, the facts are many and far reaching. Believe me I'm no conspiracy theorist either, my brother in law is one of them and is always going on about 911 theories and other garbage, and I always tell him straight that I'm not interested. Trouble is, maybe like you he thinks I'm up for it because of my views on mmgw. The fact is though, my views are based wholly on science and fact, it's as simple as that. I think and hope that you may have an inkling that I'm a logical person and not a conspiracy freak :) 

Basically there are a few characters that have controlled and manipulated the state of climate science over the last decade. Have you not heard of Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit in east Anglia? He was a major player along with a few Americans, but namely Michael Mann.

Mann is responsible for forging the infamous hockey stick temperature graph (a graph such as the one on Wiki that you linked to) and used in Gore's film which shows a huge temperature rise in the shape of a hockey stick which has been proven as nonsense. Basically Mann used proxy data gained from tree rings to reconstruct temperatures over the last 1000 years, then twisted the data to erase the medieval warm period and exaggerate the present. The graph is still used in schools today even though proved fake.

Details of the private emails sent between Mann and Jones (and a few other key players) are listed in the link above, the whole exposure of the emails was called climategate, which sent the blogosphere into overdrive while mainstream media reported nothing. They were leaked from the University of East Anglia by an insider who couldn't simply stand by and watch the fraud.

There are conversations discussing how to keep scientists who didn't conform to MMGW theory from having their work published in journals. Any scientist who dared to question mmgw would be blocked "even if it meant redefining the peer review process" I kid you not. Mann and Jones had that sort of power.

They also 'lost' much of their data after it was requested to be released via freedom of information requests, because they knew it wouldn't hold water, all discussed and revealed in the private emails.

Like I said, I don't know where to begin, but just hope that you and others understand that the science of climate is not as clear cut as the BBC machine will have you believe.

A good credible source for climate science is www.wattsupwiththat.com which you could take a look at when you get time.

Trevh
I can tell you one thing for sure, I'm never going to argue the toss with you on the subject of climate change.
I know when I've run up against an impenetrable wall of information and research.
I hope you're right, because if you're not, and your side wins the debate, then God help our future generations.

Trevh, it's fascinating stuff and you've certainly aroused my suspicions.  How did you decide that the "real" scientists are right?

Why are you sure it's the "denialists" who are at a financial disadvantage though? Surely the oil and coal industries wouldn't be shy about spending a few billions on proving that man made climate change is a myth? There are also several big countries with enormous research budgets who don't seem that keen on reducing their co2 emissions?

It's not as simple as that Mr Anderson. Climate change is an incredibly complex area that involves many different factors (some of which today's scientists aren't even aware of the existence of yet). It would be great if somebody (whether funded by big oil or not) could definitively prove or disprove 'it'. Unfortunately, it's such a vast arcane subject, and there're so many grey areas, that scientists from either side can pull out some obscure set of figures that seems to confound an argument for or against it. Those scientists from the other side can then say 'Ah yes, but you didn't consider factor X', and then come up with another obscure set of figures that seems to reinforce their own ideas. And so on and so on. Neither side is really winning the argument based on facts. It's just a case of argument and counter-argument. And that's made trickier by the aspect that so many of the people involved are biased one way or the other. That's not really how science is supposed to work.

Many of the general UK funding bodies didn't start off being pro-Man-made Climate Change (unlike the IPCC, whose founders began expressly wanting to create a body that would prove that there was Man-made Climate Change - the IPCC is anything but neutral on the topic). However, as MMCC has become a 'hotter' subject, the funding bodies have gradually become keener and keener on any sort of research that appears to have a 'this will add to the Climate-Change theory' angle. To the point where it simply became beneficial to up and coming scientists to go along with the flow.  (This isn't so much the case in the US, although grants for research with an MMCC angle have gone up there dramatically in recent years too.)

There's evidence that the tide is starting to turn now, but up until quite recently, it was very hard to speak out against MMCC without a barrage of scientists (mostly part of or encouraged by the IPCC) speaking out and ridiculing you. That fear of being tagged as a lunatic made many scientists decide it would be in their interests to appear to be going along with the theory, whether they have concerns or not.

The IPCC has been partially discredited by the Climategate scandal. They do clearly have a strong bias in favour of proving MMCC. What we need to do is create a completely neutral body, and get them to look at all the data. The IPCC has made various modifications to much of the datasets we already have, so, where possible, we need to go back to the original data and see exactly what it does say, without modifications and without alterations.

And hopefully a new body wouldn't place so much store on 'computer models'. None of these models have been left unmodified. Many of the model builders set out to build a program that proves a certain theory. If new data appears to dilute the results, the programmers modify the factors used by that program so that it appears to show the 'right results' again. Many of us here have built our own trading systems, so we know the score. No betting system is worth a bean until it's had a chance to prove its worth working with large quantities of new data. Simply curve-fitting a system so that it fits in with past data is no guarantee whatsoever of strong future performance!

We need a neutral body that can make up its own mind, and that won't rely on computer models and datasets that it modifies to suit its own purposes. Then, perhaps, we might start to take out first steps towards seeing if the overall evidence appears to point one way or the other.

Good post Cooee, as you know the IPCC has been ridiculed over the last couple of years for it's sheer incompetence, telling porky after porky. Here's a little clip from theinvestor.com ...   


"Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.

It keeps getting worse for the much-discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which seems to have built its collapsing house of climate cards on sand or, more specifically, river sediment.

After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and nonpeer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.

According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.

Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.

CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.

Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."

Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter."

Frog, impenetrable wall... hahha I like that, I used to spend many hours on science forums but not so much nowadays as betting takes up much of my time. As for being right, the science says so, and also that there's a high probability that we're in for several decades of global cooling.

Have you ever thought about the consequences of cooling as opposed to warming? It's worse in every respect, from keeping warm, growing food, keeping transport moving, building, etc and all the expense that that entails. If global warming was on the cards it would be far easier and less expensive to adapt to than cooling, and would see less loss of life.
Imagine what's going to happen when the next ice age arrives, life will huddle around the equator again. 

Cat, I just listen to the science as presented. Proper scientists have been calling for an open debate with gravy train scientists for several years now, but their response has always been that the science is settled. They run scared because they know they'll be exposed, even going so far as to destroy data rather than release it under FOI requests.

So if I get a Bentley ill be saving the planet?

I found this site interesting:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Morner's claims, sea level rise, and Tuvalu sea level rise are among the many topics. It's no doubt what you would call pro MMCC, but plenty of comments from people who don't agree.

It's all very interesting, but personally I'm going to focus on Euro 2012 research now:)

I hope I have helped you make up your mind adge.

Myth or no myth, long may it continue. Anything that increases humans awareness on being kinder to the planet is good.

Waiting for scientific proof is the wrong mentality. It's like saying I don't care if i am doing damage or not, i'm not going to do anything until you can completely prove it. How arrogant is that.

The planet is in no danger for about 5bn years but man stands a really good chance of rendering it uninhabitable for himself.

If you get a Bentley you will neither be saving or destroying the planet, you will have no effect at all. Take a look at my earlier post about UK car CO2 emissions please. You've also fallen for the propaganda that big cars are bad, as you sit there in your heated home that has a far larger carbon footprint than a Bentley, just ask Al Gore what the carbon footprint of his mansions is ;)

I shouldn't get involved in carbon footprint talk as the very concept is nonsense, CO2 is not a pollutant it's essential for life as we know it, photosynthesis of course, and is currently diminished, hence my earlier post about farmers buying CO2 to raise levels artificially for optimum food production. I didn't make it up - honest. We also use CO2 for other food production such as fizzy drinks, and of course we exhale it with every breath we take.

UA, on the contrary the  myth of mmgw actually takes away attention from real environmental issues by stealing the limelight.

I'd be amazed if the planet was safe for 5bn years Cat, remember we are lust a lump of rock spinning at 1000mph while orbiting a star at approx 60000mph while hurtling through space and colliding with other rocks. Very lucky to have any kind of stable climate at all when you think about it. Have you read about the Milankovitch cycles?

What environmental issues are you referrring to Trev.

Trev, it's been here for 4bn years already why shouldn't it last another 5?  I agree there is a risk but it's much more likely the planet and life will survive without us.

You seem to be readily decimating all counter arguments being put up on here trevh.
Real mastermind style.
Good to read in fact.
I was beginning to think that you might just be a one trick pony, albeit a good one, with your obvious total commitment and involvement in trying to make a full time living out of BF.
But you quite obviously have other serious outside interest(s).
Perhaps you could thus educate me a bit on the following relatively on topic matter..
I think I read somewhere recently that some top US horse trainer was recently fined or banned for one of his horses having too much CO2 inside it.
What's all that about ?

If you get a Bentley you will neither be saving or destroying the planet, you will have no effect at all. - Ah Trev, if only CO2 was the only thing to come out of cars. I take it that air pollution isn't one of the real environmental issues.

Seriously though, the way global warming has become a global phenomenon is a very negative reflection on humans. Has anyone noticed that the reason why everyone is getting so excited about this is not because of the effect that it has on the planet, but that it might affect humans (a large number) directly. The only environmental issues that humans currently care about on a mass level is the danger to humans. The MMGW myth or non-myth is changing the way humans en masse view the planet in a good way.

You can see it now. Look at childrens tv now, things like Bob the Builder (yes i have children and i'm not a big freaking weirdo). One of his slogans is "reduce, re-use, recycle". In my day it was more He-Man and things like "I have the power".

Long may it continue.

Indeed, the depressing thing about this is that if what trevh says is true, when the truth comes out nobody will ever take environmental issues even mildly seriously again, and we really need to.

None of this has any detrimental effect on the planet at all, only in terms that we define ourselves.  As for focussing on the way our changing the environment is affecting man...should we fix it?....yes we should!

U.A, all I meant was that if a non problem is getting all the limelight then it stands to reason that that's at the expense of any and all real issues. You mention air pollution, but cars are fitted with catalytic converters these days which turn harmful carbon monoxide into harmless carbon dioxide. The biggest polluters are buses which spew out carcinogenic fumes.

The point about "the MMGW myth or non-myth" creating awareness of the planet that you and Cat make I agree with, but that awareness doesn't actually need to be made on the back of a lie, it could me made anyway in an honest fashion.

What angers me about the whole affair is the way essential carbon dioxide has been made the scapegoat, resulting in crazy carbon trading schemes/credits/permits/licences, we used to mock that one day they'd find a way of taxing the air that we breathe, well now they have! Fraud is immense (as would be expected when vast amounts of money are changing hands for worthless pieces of paper/carbon credits) I think it was the Canadian carbon trading scheme that collapsed last year in a heap of fraud.

The UK has recently introduced a hefty carbon tax on flights resulting in other countries seeking legal action and threatening to boycott the UK and cancel export contracts - not great for our economy then!

"China is among more than two dozen countries including India, Russia and the US that opposed the EU scheme, which applies to airlines taking off or landing in Europe.

The EU has said the carbon tax will help the 27-nation EU bloc achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down, despite claims the charge violates international law."

Frog, haha, I'm flattered lol but I'm only putting up some truths in reality.

I've never heard of an animal having too much CO2! Too much methane yes haha, there was research grants given to gravy train scientists researching how to make cows fart less, only in the UK of course!

Just Googled the story and found this, yes you're right, apparently it's called milkshaking...


"The seven-member California Horse Racing Board met in closed session Thursday at Betfair Hollywood Park in Inglewood, Calif., to consider the recommended decision of a hearing officer in O'Neill's case. The board agreed with the officer's recommendations, which included the maximum punishment and fine for the trainer, who turned 44 on Thursday.

While elevated carbon dioxide is associated with "milkshaking," the officer agreed with O'Neill that his horse Argenta had not been fed a mixture of bicarbonate of soda, sugar and electrolytes that enhances performance and combats fatigue. The officer did not indicate what might have caused the overage.

"I'm gratified that the CHRB found that I did not "milkshake" a horse or engage in any intentional conduct that would result in an elevated TC02 level," O'Neill said."



Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2012-05-24/triple-crown-belmont-stak...

Cat : it's been here for 4bn years already why shouldn't it last another 5?  I agree there is a risk but it's much more likely the planet and life will survive without us.

Yes I agree, sorry I thought you meant that man wouldn't be affected by climate for 5bn years. Isn't the next glacial (iceage) due any time, given that we've had an interglacial period for the last 11000 years or so and they usually last around 10000 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if in as little as 1000 years the UK and Europe will be crushed by tons of ice hundreds of feet thick, destroying all cities under its weight. Sea levels will drop dramatically as the water becomes land based in the form of ice, the English channel will be water free again. That will last for perhaps 100,000 years then carve a new landscape as it all begins to melt towards the start of the next glacial period. Sounds horrific doesn't it, but scientists believe it could begin within 100 years, we just don't know, but apparently the onset is very rapid when it does.

And Yellowstone is about to blow and I think I read that we are statistically due a major meteor impact any century now!  Not to mention what will happen when some crazy Muslim gets a handful of infidel busting nukes.

I watched a film about the ice age coming quickly, the theory was that once the gulf stream changes direction there would be a huge snowballing (ha ha) effect that would bring the ice age on in a matter of days.  It was a good idea completely ruined by the need to have a stupid story with a predictable happy ending running through it. And, incidentally, making it look like an ice age will just mean we have to wear bobble hats when we go outside. The Day After Tomorrow.

But, er,   should i get these solar panels or not ?

Talking of the gulf stream, about a decade ago gravy train scientists were stating that in 10 years time the UK would probably never see snow again, and that children of 2010 would grow up not knowing what snow was, only being able to see it in books and films. This was widely reported by the BBC, Google will turn up the old reports for you.

Then of course they had to do a complete U turn because as predicted by real scientists the climate is not warming, and we've had several harsh winters in a row, December 2010 being the coldest December for over 100 years resulting in more snow than you could shake a stick at.

The gravy train scientists have no shame, and over the course of the last 10 years have gone from stating "there will be no more snow" to ... well actually it might get colder because of the melting ice pushing the gulf stream more southerly... haha you couldn't make it up! When funding is on the line they will stoop to any lengths, that's basically how anthropogenic carbon dioxide induced global warming theory morphed into simply climate change, when they realised there is no actual warming.

Here's a nice link on gulf stream science...


Prof Carl Wunsch is one of the world's leading experts on this subject, the wider label for which is 'THC' (thermohaline circulation).

His letter to the publication Nature is below, also a link to the excellent content on the Gulf Stream / THC at 'CO2 Science'.



------



Sir - Your News story "Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure" (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like "without the Gulf Stream." Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new iceage in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.

European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.

Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.

Professor Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

Here's another for good measure... :)

Reference
Lund, D.C., Lynch-Stieglitz, J. and Curry, W.B. 2006. Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium. Nature 444: 601-604.
Background
Many people fear -- or at least claim they do -- that global warming will lead to enhanced precipitation and melting of ice in high northern latitudes, which will lead to augmented freshwater runoff to the North Atlantic Ocean, which will lead to a precipitous decline in North Atlantic Deep Water formation, which will produce a swift reduction in the global ocean's thermohaline circulation, which could shut down the Gulf Stream and bring cold times to Europe.

What was done
In a study that comes to bear upon this climate-alarmist scenario, Lund et al. used the δ18O of foraminifera obtained from sediment cores retrieved near the Dry Tortugas and Great Bahama Bank to reconstruct density profiles of the Florida Current (the portion of the Gulf Stream that flows through the Straits of Florida) over the past millennium.

What was learned
In the words of the three researchers, "the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age (AD ~1200 to 1850)," and they estimate that the "Little Ice Age volume transport was ten percent weaker than today's," stating additionally that "the intervals 0-100 yr BP [years before present] and 1,000-1,100 yr BP are characterized by higher transport."

What it means
In contrast to climate-alarmist contentions that the Gulf Stream could weaken in response to global warming, real-world data indicate that during portions of both the Medieval and Current Warm Periods the strength of the Gulf Stream was actually enhanced relative to what it was during the cooler Little Ice Age, which finding runs exactly counter to what Al Gore and many of his followers have long suggested should be the case.

(so the alarmists should fear cooling - which is what we look to be getting for a few decades!)

Cat, you mentioned that awful film by Gore earlier, did you know that the film contains errors/lies that were challenged in court?

"A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children."


When you get 5 minutes have a look at the link below, it shows the errors in full including the gulf stream (error 3).


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Trev, you have succeeded in opening my mind on this matter but I'm no happier about it all.  Especially since, if you're right, the kids are all being told the wrong thing.

Cat, have you also checked out the site I linked to above? Personally I find that page much more convincing than Trevh. In my opinion it has good responses to everything Trevh claims. I'm now 99% certain that man made climate change is NOT a (complete) myth. Before I had bothered to read up on the subject I was only about 80% certain.

Yes, I have Mr Anderson thanks.  I haven't said that I don't believe in mmcc just that it isn't as clear cut to me any more. A lot of the argument is about co2 and the greenhouse effect which, even if it's wrong, doesn't mean mmcc doesn't exist.  I don't understand he science enough to be able to say I agree either way but I am sure that man cannot be fleecing the planet the way we are without having any effect at all.

I understand that the environment changes naturally but when it does species are exterminated, especially the highly adapted and specialised ones like man.  You only have to consider how finely tuned our food production and distribution is to judge the impact of even a relatively minor environmental glitch. If, as Trevh has said, if the planet is cooling rather than warming up it could be worse for us.

In summary I would say that the argument about mmc it's actually moot.  What we have to do is to monitor our environment and do our best to protect it for future generations by understanding and predicting the changes and acting accordingly.

thanks for everyones efforts and replies.
what a wonderful thread i created with a simple question.

i don't get this effort on the horseracing forum.

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions."



http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Here's a look at the points raised in skeptical-science, point by point analysis, please take 10 minutes to read them...

http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

If anybody would like an explanation of any particular point please ask :)

Finally, at skeptical-science they don't appreciate comments and debate from real scientists so they simply censor/delete them... says it all really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%E2%80%93-rewriting-history

Cat : What we have to do is to monitor our environment and do our best to protect it for future generations by understanding and predicting the changes and acting accordingly.

Yes, the best we can hope for is natural global warming, natural cooling would be very hard to adapt to, not least for "food production and distribution" reasons as you say above.

Unfortunately though, scientific opinion is that we may well be entering a solar minimum such as the Dalton or Maunder minimums which will result in decades of cooling to come, which isn't catastrophic by any means, but it doesn't help that the gravy train scientists are influencing government to waste billions on  an anthropogenic carbon dioxide induced warming scenario, leaving us wide open to catch a cold.

And yes it is shocking that in this day and age kids are being taught junk science in schools, with lashings of alarmism. When my nieces and nephews tell me that they've been learning about all the poor polar bears dying on the melting ice I make sure they have access to the other side of the story too, that's the best I can do. I know there are some good teachers out there though that do this too.

Well the schools are right to teach current science otherwise it's intelligent design here we come. It's up to science to be as correct as it can be and for this we rely on the integrity of the scientific cummunity.

Are you a scientist by trade Trev? I am starting to picture you as looking like the inventor from back to the future.

Ok Trevh, so you don't think the guy behind Skeptical Science is credible.

Then please explain to me why you think Nils-Axel Mörner whose work on sea-level change you referred to above is credible? In my view his support of dowsing detracts from his credibility in all other areas.

Haha, no Cat, I'm a mere gambler with a questioning and logical mind. Fortunately a friend of mine is a scientist and Masters lecturer who trains international postgraduate students in astrophysics, astrochemistry, solar physics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres including climate science which draws on all of them.

Mr.Anderson, I don't see it as a case of who is being made to appear credible or not, but rather a case of studying and examining the science as presented.

The friend I mentioned above has also responded on a professional basis to all of the points raised on skepticalscience by John Cook, and confirms that there is no substance to them and that the website is peddling junk science. I could list all of his written responses if anyone would like to see them?

Since I'm not really an expert at the natural sciences it can be difficult for me to judge the quality of research in these fields, and to a certain degree I have to go by credibility. (Most good science isn't freely available on the internet anyway.)

Basically, because of his support of dowsing, I think Mörner is a fruitcake. In my eyes it gives him close to zero credibility as a scientist. The organisation he was leading (that I never had heard of before) has since revised their opinion. NASA, which I think is a very credible organisation (no, I don't think the moon landings were faked), thinks the sea level is rising (http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/). 99.99% of all other scientists in the field think the sea level is rising. It's just hard to think of any reason why the dowser should be right.

If someone is claiming lots of different things, and I know for a fact that some of them are completely wrong, then I'm much less inclined to believe him on other matters where his views are controversial and I don't completely understand the science behind it.

I understand that the environment changes naturally but when it does species are exterminated, especially the highly adapted and specialised ones like man.  You only have to consider how finely tuned our food production and distribution is to judge the impact of even a relatively minor environmental glitch.



Just came back to this thread after a few days. I'm rather puzzled by this statement Cat.  Man is highly adapted and specialised?  How can you say that?   Mankind was born with very little in the way of natural advantages. We didn't have highly protective coats, or sharp teeth for ripping apart flesh, or the ability to fly, or to cross large distances at breakneck speed.  And yet, through the use of our brains and our ability to create tools, we've become highly adept at performing all of those and many other functions. Amongst highly developed creatures, I doubt you could find a species that can adapt more successfully to a wide range of habitats and beat more creatures at their own game than **** sapiens.

Now, obviously, if the temperature was to get too high, we'd die out. However, we'd probably find a way around most food shortages. The human population would undoubtedly plummet, but things would have to get very bad before all humans starved to death. With our ability to 'create' food and think of solutions to problems, we'd be much more likely to be able to keep feeding ourselves than most other developed animals.  And if it came to a fight for food, we'd have sufficient weaponry to put most of those other developed animals in the grave ourselves rather than starve to death.

I agree if the changes are slight, we are very versatile and innovative creatures, but in a mass extinction we'd be amongst the first to go.  We are specialiased, our large brains mean we need to gestate our babies for nine months and spend about a year carrying them full time, several years carrying them part time, five or so before they are anything but a burden.  What's more, **** bobbin will take fourteen or fifteen years to make it to another generation.  This is a massive overhead in an environment that favours genetic adaptation, compared to mr and mrs shrew who will require less food and will be hundreds of generations ahead of you by this time.  Check the mass extinctions, most of the big animals die!

Ha ha, h0m0 is not allowed!  My own genus banned!

'h0m0 bobbin'?  Well not sure I approve of that idea!   

Fair enough point about the long development time of humans and the effect that would have on genetic adaptation. But I still think, if we pared the human population back to the strongest and the smartest - in other words, we stop caring for those who can't fend for themselves, like Bob - we could survive as a species for much longer than you'd think. Genetic adaptation isn't such a problem for us, since we can adapt our tools - building stronger shelters and manufacturing clothes better suited to the elements, for instance. 

It would depend to some extent on exactly what sort of conditions we lived in, and whether it was possible to keep growing food - either animal or crops. As long as we were able to keep creating a food source, and had some access to water, we'd probably be okay, since we don't actually need very much to survive. We know quite a bit about efficient farming now, so a few of us could probably eke out a sustainable lifestyle under most conditions.

Mr and Mrs Shrew, on the other hand, would have to eat an awful lot every day. They consume between one and two times their body weight in food every 24 hours, so they would have to be finding food to eat almost the whole time they're active. That's an inherent flaw of their body design, and even with a mega-fast birthrate, it would be very hard indeed for them to adapt before dying out, should food very suddenly become scarce.

Humans could probably get by while doing a little farming or by using our superior tools to hunt the other large beasts into extinction. Of the latter, I suspect we'd be the last ones standing, although I take your point that it'll be the smaller tougher more genetically-adaptable creatures that would be more likely to have the best chances of survival.

Basically, because of his support of dowsing, I think Mörner is a fruitcake. In my eyes it gives him close to zero credibility as a scientist.

Clearly it could be argued by atheists that any religious scientist isn't worth listening to, yet there are many distinguished scientists who practice a religion.

Arguments like that have no merit as they are just another form of the 'appeal to auithority' logical fallacy, only this time in a negative sense where somebody's authority is attacked. It says nothing about the junkscience of manmade warming.

The seal level is currently falling, NASA mentioned the start of the drop  "between last summer (2010) and this one (2011) global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimetre. In fact sea levels have fallen overall for nearly four years according to Envisat data.

If someone is claiming lots of different things, and I know for a fact that some of them are completely wrong, then I'm much less inclined to believe him on other matters where his views are controversial and I don't completely understand the science behind it.

On that basis all of the so-called 'consensus' scientists are wrong as their predictions for temperature rise have been proved wrong and none of them predicted a period of sea level fall.

Perhaps you'd like to run through the 100+ myths raised by Cook now and answer why his website skepticalscience.com which you refer to, censors replies from reputable scientists who don't conform to MMGW theory?

Hi there Trev

You referred to Skeptical Science being monitored by "Zealots", however anyone who takes a view pro mmgw is peddling "junk science" or is a "gravy train scientist" and people who oppose mmgw you call real scientists. Be careful you do not become what you despise others for being.

You seemed to infer that teachers who tell children pro mmgw information are not good teachers. ( I hope that i have misred this).

You also talk about the government wasting billions by doing things i assume like trying to change the way we get power. Just out of curiousity do you believe that changing the way we get our power is a complete waste of money.

Finally just curious of your thoughts on changes of diurnal temperature range changes post 9/11. I have read a few things but I don't know whether they are from "real" or "gravy train" scientists.

Hi U.A, I believe we should be pumping more money into fusion research which is the long term future. I don't see any benefits to pumping money into wind power (unless you're the PM's father in law of course). I thought this statement by Anne Widdecombe yesterday was on the button...

GEORGE Osborne is reputed to be asking for huge cuts in government aid for wind farms.

That is the best environmental news for years and indicative of good sense still lurking beneath the green obsession.

These wretched turbines are ugly and ineffective and have been imposed on the British countryside not on the grounds of energy efficiency but out of a doctrinaire approach to environmental issues and a wholesale swallowing of some of the wilder claims of an increasingly discredited global warming lobby.

Now the Chancellor, who clearly lacks neither courage nor common sense, should go one stage further and begin reducing the millions pumped into the global warming research establishments in some of our universities and elsewhere.

There have been a few brave scientific voices raised in question of some of the claims made but so long as academics risk prejudicing huge quantities of funding their natural reaction will be to defend the status quo.



On the subject of plane contrails, I would have thought that they cause an overall cooling effect via the albedo effect. There's an interesting chat about it here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/the-planes-the-planes/


It's also believed that solar eruptivity (not to be confused with solar irradiance) seeds cloud cover leading to a cooler climate via the albedo effect.

Sunspot activity was recently at its lowest recorded level for more than 100 years, solar cycle 23 was extra long (normally 11 years) with a long solar minimum, and cycle 24 is predicted to be weak. Scientists believe there's a high probability that we are now entering a period of climate similar to the Dalton minimum circa 1800 (end of the little ice age) when solar activity was similarly quiet.

The solar/climate relationship is like this :

Lower magnetic field strength = fewer sunspots = reduced solar wind = increased high energy cosmic rays = increased low level cloud formation = increased albedo = cooler Earth.

The effects of weaker total solar irradiance (fewer sunspots) are separate to the effects of solar eruptivity (increased cosmic ray flux) which is the main reason many scientists expect to see a cooling climate for years to come.

I'll ask the friend I mentioned earlier in the thread on his opinions of "diurnal temperature range changes post 9/11" and post back later. :)

It's been proven that dowsing doesn't work. Dowsing is proper junk science, you misuse that term. The existence of one ore more gods or life after death can not be disproven. Big difference. In many societies you are also under social pressure to say you are religious and to go to church if you don't want to become an outcast. In no society are you under pressure to say you think dowsing works. I would however view any scientist who completely rejects evolution theory with great skepticism.

You shouldn't use any one researcher's findings as "proof" of anything until they have been independently confirmed anyway. Only junk scientists do that.

You can't use short periods of just one year or a couple of years to say that a trend has been broken. Especially not when it's never been the case that every single year has been warmer than the previous or seen the sea level rise.

Having constructed a model that didn't stand the test of time very well isn't the same as claiming something that is clearly false and sticking to that no matter what proof to the contrary you are shown.

With the Euros about to start I don't have any time for further reading on this subject the next couple of weeks. I have done enough reading to convince myself that the majority view is correct anyway, and I'm not going to take it upon myself to try to convince others of my opinion. I think you have the conviction of a zealot anyway Trevh, and are unlikely to change your opinion about anything.

IF YOUR INSTALLING SOLAR PANELS JUST LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE

how can you say dowsing doesnt work ? twice now 2 different people have found water pipes on my property. and it wasnt a flook as I have several acres !

LEX CAN I BRING A TENT AND LIVE THERE IF MY MAM THROWS ME OUT

I WAS GOING TO LIVE WITH THE SEALS AND BIRDS  IN THE SHETLAND ISLES BUT THEY MIGHT KEEP ME AWAKE AT NIGHT

yes why not. Im up for a laff


take a wire coat hanger and cut it into 2 lengths.

bend each length to a 'L' shape. The small leg of the 'L' to be equal to the depth of your fist.

Put a bucket of water on the ground. Stand well away from the bucket.

Very loosly hold each wire in your fists with the long leg of the 'L' facing parrallel and away from your body you old the short leg of the 'L'

walk towards the bucket.  and be amazed.

If Trevh is saying that he believes it possible to locate a source of water using a magic stick or that there could be a man in the sky with a big white beard that that made everything then he has lost my attention.

Cat, I said neither of those things, if you must know I'm an atheist but that's irrelevant really.

Mr.Anderson has succeeded in diverting attention from the important points quite cleverly, but that's standard and well known tactics of warmists. He won't answer any points on the nonsense one liners by Cook on the 100+ issues listed on the junk science website that he linked to, so diversionary tactics are employed.

Whether sea level is rising, is steady or is falling is actually irrelevant, as is the hottest whatever since whenever, or the wettest whatever since whenever, or the coldest whatever since whenever. The fact remains that there is no human causal signal in any data.

FINE AS FROG HAIR • May 31, 2012 7:39 AM BST
Trevh
I can tell you one thing for sure, I'm never going to argue the toss with you on the subject of climate change.
I know when I've run up against an impenetrable wall of information and research.
I hope you're right, because if you're not, and your side wins the debate, then God help our future generations.

Would be interested to see the ratio of religious people to believers of this new bullshit propaganda..

Here is a nice little vid..  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

Trevh, I didn't really think you were, I was replying to an earlier post that carried that implication.  Or at least I thought it did, maybe I misread it.

Anyway delighted, and not surprised, you are amongst the enlightened!

catflaqpo
Date Joined: 11 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message
When: 30 May 12 15:46
Joined:
Date Joined: 11 Nov 11
| Topic/replies: 590 | Blogger: catflaqpo's blog
I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

Abuse of science is rife in big business. Here's an example.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6815/is_3_20/ai_n28450366/

I would like Richard Dawkins to focus a bit on the abuse of science in medicine, rather than limiting his attacks to unscientific alternative medicine.

It's relatively harmless compared to the 'worse than nothing' drugs that are routinely marketed under the guise of scientifically 'proven' treatment.

BJT : Would be interested to see the ratio of religious people to believers of this new bullshit propaganda..

Yes, given that MMGW theory is faith based rather than fact based the number of true believers that also hold religious beliefs would no doubt be very high.

U.A. : Finally just curious of your thoughts on changes of diurnal temperature range changes post 9/11. I have read a few things but I don't know whether they are from "real" or "gravy train" scientists.

As said above, I asked my friend (scientist and Masters lecturer who trains international postgraduate students in astrophysics, astrochemistry, solar physics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres including climate science which draws on all of them) for his opinion on your question, his reply was...


"The post about 911 and contrails seems to be somebody wanting to get into the murky world of global dimming (as an excuse for lack of warming). There were studies looking at the impact of having aircraft largely grounded over the USA.

Scroll down:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

My response would be that the latest IPCC SPM estimate of contrail climate forcing has a lower bound of 0.003 W/m2 with a 'Low Level of Scientific Understanding' attached, so the effect is marginal even according to the IPCC.

Good luck with those believers!"

Hi TrevH, thanks for getting back to us on this.

"The post about 911 and contrails seems to be somebody wanting to get into the murky world of global dimming (as an excuse for lack of warming). There were studies looking at the impact of having aircraft largely grounded over the USA."

I hope your mate is better at science than he is at psychoanalysis, although I wasn't sure if his term "murky world of global dimming" was a science boffin's attempt at humour. I do hope it was.

I asked the question because from what i read, it seemed like it may well affect climate but as to how it does people aren't entirely sure. I also wondered years ago when it first came up that if there was global warming, then wouldn't there be more evaporation and so more cloud cover which would in effect stop more sunlight getting through naturally helping the earth cool. These were thoughts when i was a lot younger with no science behind them i stress.

Anyway I have a question for you. I believe that there is no god but I also believe that it is possible that I could be wrong and that one may exist. Now i know you don't believe in global warming but do you believe that there is a possibility that you could be wrong and that somehow man could be causing the earth to warm up? Just asking not trying to entrap you.

I also wondered years ago when it first came up that if there was global warming, then wouldn't there be more evaporation and so more cloud cover which would in effect stop more sunlight getting through naturally helping the earth cool. These were thoughts when i was a lot younger with no science behind them i stress.



Good point. And I think you'll find scientists are still pretty unclear about clouds and their effect on global warming. Indeed, there's an awful lot that scientists remain rather unsure about when it comes to the various factors that might or might not affect temperatures. That's another reason why this reliance on computer simulations is so harmful. Scientists don't yet understand enough about the environment and its various factors to be able to emulate the world's environment accurately. And much Global Warming research seems to rely on the results of computer programs, or relies on modifying the data-sets so that they conform with said programs.

True Cooee, the Met office has ceased to publish mid range forecasts after their infamous barbecue summer and mild winter forecasts of recent years turned out to be the exact opposite of what actually happened. They use the same computer models to forecast long term climate, which are hopelessly flawed with CO2 warming bias. It appears to be a simple case of GIGO - garbage in garbage out.

Andrew Neil had the head of the Met office squirming on his chair in a recent interview asking why the multi million pound models hadn't predicted the recent lack of warming, to which he simply lied and said they had, which can easily be proven as a lie by referring to their forecast graphs from 10 years ago, along with the forecast that snow would become a thing of the past by 2010 in the UK.

That's the beauty of the PC era, it's all on record for us to drag up. They've realised this of course, hence no more mid range forecasts, and they'll all be retired on huge pensions by the time the long term forecasts have been proven just as wrong.

U.A. :  I believe that there is no god but I also believe that it is possible that I could be wrong and that one may exist

U.A., you can't believe both of those things, they're mutually exclusive. Perhaps you are an agnostic?

Now i know you don't believe in global warming but do you believe that there is a possibility that you could be wrong and that somehow man could be causing the earth to warm up?

I do believe in global warming and global cooling because there is no other option.

I don't believe that the current theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions warming the climate is possible to a measurable extent. I think the amounts of money changing hands under the nonsense of MMGW research and the multi million pound carbon trading schemes, could if redirected go a very long way to feeding and watering the third world.

"This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

Nice link Genelec, that's exactly what I meant when I said "it's all on record for us to drag up".

For anyone that didn't click the link it's dated 12 December 2007.

What has actually happened contrary to NASA sientist Zwally's prediction is that Arctic sea ice has expanded in area by 500,000 square KM's since summer 2007.

Just for humour value...

"Olive groves in Oxfordshire? Bill Giles, the BBC's weatherman, thinks so. Despite some particularly vicious nights of frost last winter, he is a firm believer in the idea of global warming. So much so that he is planning to plant olive trees in his own south Oxfordshire garden. In 20 years or so, he reckons, with the typical summer climate moving north at a rate of 10 kilometres a year, Dundee will be as balmy as Berkshire. France, he says, will be "a desert". Hard luck on the Dordogners."
Anna Pavord, The Independent 23 August 1996

In theory at least Oregon State University (OSU) seems to be a bastion of academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance. Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a "Senior Instructor" in the Department of Chemistry. The department chairman Richard Carter told him that he was fired but would not provide any reason. Subsequent attempts to extract a reason from the OSU administration have been stonewalled. Drapela appears to have been highly competent and well-liked by his students. Some have even taken up the fight to have him reinstated.

"The fact of the matter is that it is now two weeks since I was fired and no one has had the cajones or the common courtesy to even tell me why. I have spoken with the Dept. Chair (Rich Carter) who fired me, and he refused to tell me why. I spoke to the Dean of Science (Vince Remcho) and he couldn't tell me why. I spoke to HR who set up a meeting with me, then cancelled it an hour before. Then I went to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (Becky Warner) and she sent me back to Rich Carter, the chemistry chair.It's just a sad, sad state of affairs that an institution like OSU would fire a good employee for (ostensibly) no reason and then run around and hide from the person they fired. I had stellar teaching evaluations, I won College of Science awards for teaching, and published textbooks. My class sections were always full and I was well-liked by students (see here). I was doing my job very well. But I guess I didn't march in step with their philosophies.

There were quite a few student protests over this at OSU (Barometer, Facebook, etc.) but to no avail.

I was given no severance and had no warning this was about to happen. In fact, I was lured into the chair's office under the guise of a fallacious story before being fired.

As you know, I was probably the most visibly-outspoken critic of the Global Warming doctrine at OSU. I gave several public talks on the topic and did research in the area which I regularly posted on the web. I was also on a few talk radio shows in the area. I think they finally just said, we can't have this.

Can it be that a university whose motto is "Open minds. Open doors" cannot abide even one faculty member who disagrees with their dogma? I suppose I am too naive, but I'm still reeling from it. Unbelievable.

I should say that they regularly read all my email communications, which is why I am writing from this private email address. That has been going on for quite some time now.

As far as my options at this point, like I said I haven't even really grasped what has just happened. I don't know what I'm going to do, or what options I have yet. I'm sure OSU wants their story to be tight and perfectly identical among all administration before coming out with an official reason why I was fired, hence the long wait and refusal to speak to me.

I truly thank you for your concern, and I hope there is some recourse, even just for the sake of exposing what is happening at OSU."

http://www.slideshare.net/sholom770/global-warming-cracked-open

Hi there TrevH

I don't really agree that the two are mutually exclusive. All I am saying is that I can't say with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. If someone does have definitive proof then please can they send it to me, and maybe cc the Pope in on it as well.

I believe the term for it is Agnostic Atheism. Another way of looking at it is to say something like "I believe that in 3 years i will be profitable on Betfair but I concede that it is possible that this might not be the case."

Apologies, when asking the quesion last time i did mean Man made global warming as opposed to global warming. I suppose what I was asking you was whether you felt that it had been proven so conclusively that MMGW does not exist that you do not entertain any possibility that somewhere, somehow man-made activity was causing the planet to increase.

Hi U.A., I asked my scientist mate his opinion on your question which I thought would be interesting, and his reply was a long winded version of mine...


"My answer would be that within the realms of sound science there is an immeasurably small and transient warming effect due to marginal additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it is not dangerous and not permanent. This is entirely in keeping with the data which shows no visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and the reality of the atmosphere possessing many degrees of freedom such that an already warm atmosphere can cool as energy escapes to space faster than climate models allow for."

Cat : I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

Read Genelec's post at 16.34 Cat, and be horrified!

There's more on the subject at the link below with many comments by concerned readers of the sad state of corruption.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/#more-65460

I did and I am :(

It really shouldn't be a surprise. Although this is a very extreme case, going against the grain often ruins academic careers.

For Henok...

haha oky trevh. didnt know that you were very passionate about this issue. still i think CO2 emission causes global warming and that we have to reduce our carbon emission and decrease or reverse deforestation.

BTW henok it's algae that generates the most oxygen into the atmosphere, but i am all for more trees anyway.

yes, i remember reading somewhere that most of the worlds co2 is recycled by plants in oceans  and seas.

haha oky trevh. didnt know that you were very passionate about this issue. still i think CO2 emission causes global warming and that we have to reduce our carbon emission and decrease or reverse deforestation.

Fair enough, how about we debate the reasons why you believe that?

You start by stating exactly why you believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming (with supporting evidence if possible), and I'll do my best to supply evidence that may convince you that you're wrong :D

Btw, I'm not anti environment, I love the planet as much as anyone, I actually planted 1000 trees a couple of years ago with my own hands lol which are about 4-5 feet tall now! The issue for me is simply about reality versus nonsense.