In practice, it seems likely that St Tim’s achievement in getting climate change classified with the supernatural will do more planetary damage even than a 6,000-mile trip in a 50-year-old Morris Oxford. Some wonder if St Tim has not been possessed by the spirit of Christopher Monckton. For short of the collective apostasy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is hard to imagine a more rewarding episode for sceptics who have always said that environmentalism is a matter of faith, not facts. For them, the most effective way of discrediting the movement is to depict it as an alliance of gullible consumers and doomy, secular preachers, who rant about sin, self-scourging and the apocalypse because they can't produce any evidence. Disparaging analogies with religion, implying that it has no science worth challenging, have followed the movement almost since it began, finding their most elegant expression in a well-known speech made by the late Michael Crichton. "Environmentalism is the religion of choice for urban atheists," he said in 2003. "Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief."
Too many environmentalists have helped make his point. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was so liberal with panic that the same Michael Burton, in a court case funded by sceptics, found nine "inaccuracies" that, he said, made it unacceptably "partisan". For instance, in attributing the melting snow on Kilimanjaro to anthropogenic climate change, Gore went against the scientific consensus (David Miliband has made the same mistake). One wonders if this experience contributed to Justice Burton's suggestion in the Nicholson case, that environmentalism is as much a viewpoint as a rational response to physical evidence. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
The Climate Torquemada – Joe Romm at the Climate Inquisition
by Kenneth P. Green, November 9, 2009
Two years ago, in Scenes from the Climate Inquisition, my colleague Steve Hayward and I observed that climate alarmists were growing ever more incendiary in their criticism of people who disagree with them. And these disagreements were not simply about the science, but about the favored policy choices of leftist environmentalists, many of whom had no training in public policy or economics. As we wrote:
Anyone who does not sign up 100 percent behind the catastrophic scenario is deemed a “climate change denier.” Distinguished climatologist Ellen Goodman spelled out the implication in her widely syndicated newspaper column last week: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” One environmental writer suggested last fall that there should someday be Nuremberg Trials–or at the very least a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission–for climate skeptics who have blocked the planet’s salvation.
Former Vice President Al Gore has proposed that the media stop covering climate skeptics, and Britain’s environment minister said that, just as the media should give no platform to terrorists, so they should exclude climate change skeptics from the airwaves and the news pages. Heidi Cullen, star of the Weather Channel, made headlines with a recent call for weather-broadcasters with impure climate opinions to be “decertified” by the American Meteorological Society. Just this week politicians in Oregon and Delaware stepped up calls for the dismissal of their state’s official climatologists, George Taylor and David Legates, solely on the grounds of their public dissent from climate orthodoxy. And as we were completing this article, a letter arrived from senators Bernard Sanders, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry expressing “very serious concerns” about our alleged “attempt to undermine science.” Show-trial hearing to follow? Stay tuned.
Desperation is the chief cause for this campaign of intimidation. The Kyoto accords are failing to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in a serious way, and although it is convenient to blame Bush, anyone who follows the Kyoto evasions of the Europeans knows better. The Chinese will soon eclipse the United States as world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, depriving the gas-rationers of one of their favorite sticks for beating up Americans.”
At the time, we naively hoped that there would be a moderation of such language, as some saner voices were beginning to push back against the whole slander-denier complex.
Alas, the venom-spitting of the the climatistas is increasing in direct proportion to the probability of failure in enacting their world-girdling eco-theocracy. And the leader of the pack, Joseph Romm of Climate Progress (Center for American Progress), turns out to be one of the least civil human beings to tread the planet.
Romm in tabloid reporting style attacked me when I accidently posted an early draft of a speech that had a typo indicating that the present cooling went back to 1978 levels (instead of 1998). The premature post was pulled and was not what I ended up delivering extemporaneously, which only fuels Romm’s conspiracy-theory mentality.
He’s also gone after the top-gun at Master Resource, Rob Bradley, publicly and in private. Publicly, Romm has smeared Bradley to smear his nonprofit, the Institute for Energy Research, which Bradley founded in 1989 as a way to protest Enron’s “green” energy strategy (see his Enron discussion here). Despite repeated rebuttals, Romm has continued to state his falsehoods about Bradley.
And in a private email (shared with me), Romm repeatedly calls Bradley a “sociopath” for his views that the climate alarm is exaggerated and that policy activism is unwarranted. “You are a denier and your actions will destroy the world your children will inherit,” Romm emailed Bradley. “Shame on you!,” he screams. “If you sleep well it is the sleep of a sociopath.”
Now, Romm is after Professor/Blogger Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In a pre-emptive smear (Pielke’s got a book coming out,) Romm spent 3,500 words trying to sully his reputation. But the liberal Breakthrough Institute, at which Roger is a Senior Fellow, fired back:
The character assassination, the bullying, the psychological projection — it all adds up to Climate McCarthyism, and Joe Romm is Climate McCarthyite-in-chief. Joe Romm’s “Global Warming Deniers and Delayers” play the same role as Joe McCarthy’s “Communists and Communist sympathizers.” While Romm built a loyal liberal and environmentalist following for attacking right-wing “global warming deniers” — a designation meant to invoke “Holocaust denier” — he spends much of his time attacking well-meaning journalists (e.g. here, here, and here), academics (here and here) and activists (here, here and here) who take the issue of global warming seriously, accept climate science, and support immediate action to address it. His aim is to intimidate and prevent increasing numbers of people from questioning climate policy orthodoxy, and especially Democratic efforts to pass cap and trade climate legislation.
Romm, as with Paul Krugman of the New York Times, are treading on dangerous ground. What they are essentially peddling is hate speech, and incitement to violence. One day, some unhinged environmentalist, worked into a frenzy reading the alarmist claptrap peddled by people like Krugman and Romm is going to engage in violence against whichever leading climate skeptic gets his attention. And when that happens, Romm and Krugman will be like the lunatics who hand explosive vests to unhinged, would-be martyrs.
No evidence to link global warming and Himalayan glaciers: minister
Written by Padmaparna Ghosh, livemint
Monday, November 09 2009 13:05
New Delhi: Receding glaciers and global warming cannot be conclusively linked, the environment ministry said, despite forecasts that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 because the planet is heating up.
“There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming and Himalayan glaciers, nor to link the black carbon in the atmosphere with the glaciers,” environment minister Jairam Ramesh said. “We also cannot link retreating glaciers in the Arctic because of climate change to those in the Himalayas.”
The minister on Monday released a discussion paper titled Himalayan Glaciers, A state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change.
“If we see the cumulative average of rate of retreat over the past 100 years, no glacier has deviated from that,” said V.K. Raina, former deputy director general of Geological Survey of India and author of the report. “There is no abnormal retreat.”
Using the Gangotri glacier as an example, Raina said: “This glacier is 30km long. Even if we assume it retreats at the rate of 30m a year, it will still take 1,000 years to disappear.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its fourth assessment report in 2007, said that Himalayan glaciers are retreating faster than in any other part of the world, and if this continues, they are likely to disappear by 2035, or perhaps sooner.
The IPCC, which is the leading body for assessing climate change and established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, attributed the receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers primarily to global warming.
R.K. Pachauri, who heads the IPCC, could not be immediately reached for comment.
“There are a number of scientific reports, including in the IPCC, that there is a clear threat,” said Vinuta Gopal, climate and energy campaign manager at Greenpeace India. “The time now is not about trying to find conclusive evidence, the time now is for action.”
Some scientists say research and field data are too limited to conclude a direct link.
“There is no field data to corroborate that the glaciers will disappear in the next 20-30 years. The range has 9,000 glaciers and we study about 30. And whichever we have studied, we need more detailed data. If we want to study glacier behaviour, we need to monitor for 8-10 years, but we only manage two years at most,” said R.K. Ganjoo, director of the Jammu University’s regional centre on Himalayan glaciology.
Clouds hang over the global-warming alarmists
Written by Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger
Tuesday, November 10 2009 08:26
President Obama’s headed to Copenhagen next month to talk climate change. Al Gore’s headed toward profits that could make him the world’s first "carbon billionaire." But where’s global temperature headed?
Nowhere, it seems. The most reliable readings of the Earth’s temperature show that it peaked back in 1998. This was not widely reported in America, where the state of science reporting is dismal. But over in England, where they take that sort of thing more seriously, the British Broadcasting Corp. created quite a stir with an article headlined "What Happened to Global Warming?"
In it, BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson gave a summary of the problems facing the alarmists: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
Hudson went on to cite numerous scientists skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But perhaps the most damning observation came from a scientist who supports the theory. Mojib Latif is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group that set the panic off with its 1996 report on global warming. According to Hudson, Latif concedes "that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."
Hmmm. Ten to 20 years is what I would call "the near future." Didn’t a certain former vice president of the United States win a Nobel Prize by pushing a movie that told us that the melting of the polar ice would cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet "in the near future?"
Perhaps Al Gore was talking about a different future, one in which he gets rich off the panic he helped create. If the Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill that’s now before it, Gore stands to make a fortune through his stake in the investment firm he set up with former Goldman-Sachs exec David Blood to deal in carbon credits. So there’s a lot at stake in that Senate decision for the firm known to Wall Street wags as "Blood and Gore." There’s even more at stake for consumers whose bills would go up by billions.
As for those senators, they’ll look pretty foolish if they pass a bill to curb global warming just as we enter a cooling trend. And Donald Easterbrook warns that is a distinct possibility. Easterbrook is a professor at Western Washington University who was quoted in that BBC article. When I called him at his home outside Seattle, Easterbrook informed me that we have just experienced the third coldest October in the past 115 years. There’s probably more cold to come, he said, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the climate will have little effect on it one way or the other. The reason? Contrary to popular belief, there just isn’t that much of it in the atmosphere.
"For every 100,000 molecules of air, only 38 are carbon dioxide," Easterbrook said. The global-warming crowd likes to say that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent in the industrial era. "But 35 percent of nothing is still nothing," says Easterbrook, and the increase in CO2 has virtually no effect.
The alarmists harp on that infinitesimal increase, he says, while they ignore the most prevalent greenhouse gas of them all — water vapor. Clouds reflect sunlight back into the sky. And that is at the center of a developing dispute among scientists. Easterbrook is on the side of a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark. In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder.
This fits in nicely with Easterbrook’s specialty, which is how ocean currents affect climate. "It turns out there is a correlation between ocean cycles and sunspots," he told me. And the historical record shows many climate shifts that correspond to sunspot activity.
"There were 6,000 feet of ice here that all melted very suddenly 15,000 years ago," Easterbrook said of his neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest. "There have been big ups and downs throughout history. How do you explain them?"
Well, if you want to control people’s lives and/or make a lot of money, you explain them the way a lot of politicians do. As for the scientists, they’re divided. Most agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for man not to alter the atmosphere at all. But that’s an entirely separate question from just what effect that alteration will have on the climate.
And the answer to that question is: Nobody’s quite certain.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject:
Chek isn't available right now, but despair not, for your call for help is important to me.
Except for you Mr Bridger, where 5 minutes of research could prove to you, under your own steam, what a shackofshhit you're pushing.
"Peaked?" Puh-leese.
It'd be stupid me even asking what your evidence is that temperature has "peaked", because I can already see that you don't even realise yourself what you're brainlessly repeating. As if solar output has noticeably diminished and all that CO2 has just "gone away" somewhere else?
Ummm, no.
Let me put it to you this way: if time were to suddenly stop - now, here, tonight - you might have an arguable point, that temperature has indeed "peaked".
But as it hasn't, the incredible assumption you'd willingly place your faith in is nothing short of breathtaking.
Don't tell me you're another one who doesn't understand basic maths, doesn't know how to read a graph in a way that understanding maths teaches you, and that as a consequence you're available prey to any well-financed source on t' internet who exploits that dumbed-down major 21st Century failing wherever possible.
I've posted enough of them and gone into enough detail about them for it to be almost self-evident, depending on your attention span, over the past nine months.
Here's a tip: look at the last global tempertaure chart I posted - there's one a few posts back. Notice how the data readings form a series of peaks and troughs separate to the "averaged trend".
Now see if you can spot your own trend - based on your everyday faculties - of how long it takes a previous "high peak" to match the "averaged trend".
Not long is it?
And that, in a nutshell is the problem today, even should Al Gore drop dead this instant..
What kind of 911 researcher are you?
What kind do you expect to be??
Remember I advised you (albeit with no invitation) to study something to overcome your suffocating sense of cultural ennui?
Well, whatever you choose, make sure it's maths based, because you really can't afford to be that handicapped in t' modern world.
Otherwise you might think rates of interest offered seem reasonable, or worse. Don't be an ignoramus any longer than necessary.
But nevertheless, be that as it may, I shall address all your concerns shortly. 'Cos that's the kinda help-thy-less-fortunate neighbour kinda guy I am.
Even banjo7 who is at the the fingers in ears, spinning around uncontrollably repeating the same old, same old as if that works - BUT! with a new twist thrown in this time around.
It's an Alex Jones sponsored Big Lie - and no, I too am well past being suprised by that clown!
However, other matters away from here come first for now, so please be patient so that I can give you all the attention you deserve. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?
Written by World Climate Report
Tuesday, November 10 2009 08:52
Early last January, when the final 2008 numbers were in for the U.S. annual average temperature, we ran an article titled “U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?” in which we noted that “The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.”
2009 seems to be following in 2008’s footsteps.
The national average temperature had been elevated ever since the big 1998 El Niño, which was leading some folks to clamor that global warming was finally showing up in the U.S. temperature record. “Finally,” because prior to 1998, there was little sign that anything unusual was going on with U.S. average temperatures (Figure 1). The end of the record was hardly any different than any other portion of the record. The slight overall trend arose from a couple of cool decades at the start of the 20th century rather than any unusual warmth towards the end.
Figure 1. United States annual average temperature, 1895-1997 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
Then along came the 1998 El Niño, which raised both global and U.S. temperatures to record values, and our national temperatures remained elevated for 10 years thereafter (Figure 2). Instead of looking for some explanation of this unusual run of very warm years in the (naturally) changing patterns of atmospheric/ocean circulation in the Pacific Ocean, it was often chalked up to “global warming.”
Figure 2. United States annual average temperature, 1895-2007 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
But then something unexpected (by the global warming enthusiasts) happened in 2008—the U.S. annual average temperature returned to normal.
In reporting this in our World Climate Report article last January, we noted the drop in temperatures and wondered about the future:
But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.
Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.
Now, 10 months have passed and we are starting to get a good idea of how 2009 is shaping up temperature-wise for the U.S. We may be jumping the gun a little here, because there are still two months (17%) of data still outstanding, and November has started out pretty warm across the West, but, in any case, Figure 3 shows the national temperature history for the first 10 months of the year.
Figure 3. United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
Thus far, 2009 is looking like another normal year—further indication that the warm period from 1998-2007 was an anomaly, rather than a step change to a new climate across the U.S. (be sure to check back in two months to see how the final 2009 numbers pan out).
No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject:
Actually, this was covered a page or two back, with the actual figures.
The USA might imagine itself to cover a globally significant area, but it's slightly less than 2% of the globe's surface, which could be interpreted as local or very local indeed, and not strictly relevant to global which is the reason we're all here. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
From The Sunday Times
March 1, 2009
Eco barons lead the way
Philip Beresford
Recommend? (10)
Read the Green Rich List here
THE global rich are going green as never before. This first Sunday Times Green Rich List shows that the enthusiasm among the world’s wealthiest for investments in areas as diverse as electric cars, solar power and geothermal energy is unaffected by the recession.
The Green List has unearthed 100 tycoons or wealthy families worth £200m or more who have made either serious investments in green technology and businesses or hefty financial commitments to environmental causes. In total, the Green 100 are worth nearly £267 billion.
This enormous sum demonstrates that many of the world’s richest tycoons and entrepreneurs have embraced environmentalism. Indeed, our list is dominated by America’s wealthiest financiers and entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett (worth £27 billion) and Bill Gates (worth £26 billion).
Here's the Times' list of investors...
1 Warren Buffett USA £27bn (Coca Cola)
2 Bill Gates USA £26bn (Microsoft)
3 Ingvar Kamprad Sweden £22bn (Ikea)
4 Marcel Brenninkmeijer Holland £19bn (C&A)
5 Mukesh Ambani India £15bn (India's Richest man)
6 Michael Bloomberg USA £14.4bn (New York Mayor)
7 Michael Otto Germany £13.2bn (Amazon)
8 Paul Allen USA £11.5bn (Microsoft, Vulcan Capital)
9 Donald Bren USA £8.2bn (Developer)
10= Sergey Brin USA £7.5bn (Google)
10= Larry Page USA £7.5bn (Google/Tesla Motors)
12 Serge Dassault France £7.5bn (EDF)
Energy companies including Oil Barons, big multinational Corps, big business tycoons are all (in some way) behind the New Green Revolution.
Other notables...
29= David Rockefeller USA £1.7bn (Standard Oil,CFR etc, WTC)
35= Sir Richard Branson UK £1.2bn (POINTLESS BALLOONING )
35= Ted Turner USA £1.2bn (CNN)
The USA makes about a third of the list of contributors.
Not sure what to make of this.
Big-energy Corps are investing.
Some uncomfortable investors there, Coca-cola, Rockefeller.
There are essentially two ways to read it: either the lizardati are all in on some giant and profitable plot to turn us all into slaves yada yada yada, or the super rich's financial advisers are better at understanding the math than most miserables, who would prefer to believe the first option anyway rather than think, as Russell alluded to.
Plus if it's correctly marketed, willing customers are queueing up to buy 'green'. Whether a change in the style of consumption while continuing to consume will be enough though, is the great unanswered question. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
chek wrote:
and not strictly relevant to global which is the reason we're all here.
The reason im here is for the wind-up factor nothing more, stop biting Chek
My apologies Mr B.
Got a lot of work on here for the next week or (hopefully not) two.
But I'm sure you'll understand that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the staunch denierati, those having a laugh, and the mentally or educationally impaired. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:11 pm Post subject:
Yes, mankind can stop climate change with good old nuclear power. It's now official.
George 'daddy was chairman of the Tory party' Monbiot against the world. Small compromise I suppose at the Guardian to stop the banks forclosing on their Scott Trust loans. The Monbiot path of least resistance.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
Yes, mankind can stop climate change with good old nuclear power. It's now official.
George 'daddy was chairman of the Tory party' Monbiot against the world. Small compromise I suppose at the Guardian to stop the banks forclosing on their Scott Trust loans. The Monbiot path of least resistance.
While I'm still very sceptical about nuclear power as we have known it so far, I'd have to say that IFR technology seems to address most of my concerns (including cleaning up our existing mess) - should it all be as good as the brochure says.
Plus I've long been of the opinion that oil and coal are too valuable as commodities to just burn.
Once they're gone (or not available at economic rates), we don't know of any alternative sources of long-chain molecules obtainable in industrial quantities, short of scavenging passing meteors. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Predictions of climate change induced natural disasters falling flat
November 5, 3:28 PMClimate Change ExaminerTony Hake
Manmade climate change is said to present humankind with some of its greatest challenges in the planet’s history, not the least of which is an alarming increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Massive flooding, super-powered hurricanes, endless tornado seasons and more have all been said to be the direst of consequences of global warming.
In his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore famously proclaimed that, “Temperature changes are taking place all over the world and that is causing stronger storms.” Standing with Hurricane Katrina as a backdrop, the former vice president issued a cautionary tale of disaster in the making, all due to our irresponsible handling of the atmosphere. As recently as February Mr. Gore was giving a presentation showing flooding, drought and wildfires saying, “This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.”
President Barack Obama, in a town hall meeting in April echoed the Nobel laureate’s comments saying, “You're now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns.” He followed that in September when in a speech before the United Nations he claimed, “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”
But what if you predicted global natural disaster catastrophes and they didn’t happen? Does that invalidate your entire message? This is the conundrum faced by climate change alarmists as many of their predictions begin to fall flat.
Mother Nature can be very fickle and predicting what she will bring tomorrow is difficult. Trying to do so over a span of years is next to impossible. Complicating matters, recent empirical evidence indicates that despite increasing carbon dioxide temperatures are decreasing and there has been no increase in climactic related events at all.
Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally – far below the normal level of 769.
Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen in 12 years.
The predictions of ‘cataclysmic hurricanes’ that would be stronger due to global warming are also not coming true. A peer reviewed study in the publication Geophysical Research Letters discovered that, “the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.”
Tornadoes, one of nature’s smaller disasters but also one of the most destructive, are not seeing increases in frequency or intensity. For the 2009 calendar year, tornado activity is approaching the 10th percentile of historical activity since 1954. Over the longer term, according to the National Climactic Data Center the number of strong to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) is decreasing as well.
In the end there is not one measure of storm frequency or intensity that has seen a measurable increase corresponding to global warming. Recognizing that the portrayals of massive disasters is not true, climate change alarmists have started to change their tact and in some cases, completely drop the argument.
Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, one of the most vocal climate change advocates, has voiced his disapproval of Al Gore’s use of these claims. Hansen said, “We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is.”
For his part, Mr. Gore appears to have realized that the data does not support the assertion. The slide that he used many times to show a purported increase in weather-related disasters was suddenly dropped from his presentation. No explanation was given much like he has never explained or even corrected the errors in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
With revelations such as these, alarmists struggle to find arguments to drive their point home. Their use of hyperbole may be affecting the public’s perception of the debate as growing numbers of people doubt the effect man may have on the climate.
Predictions of climate change induced natural disasters falling flat
November 5, 3:28 PMClimate Change ExaminerTony Hake
Manmade climate change is said to present humankind with some of its greatest challenges in the planet’s history, not the least of which is an alarming increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Massive flooding, super-powered hurricanes, endless tornado seasons and more have all been said to be the direst of consequences of global warming.
These long term studies tell quite a different story.
So 12 years is basically the deniers jumping on the cherry picking bandwagon again, just as with that stupid global cooling meme that they've now dropped.
Lengthy article exposing the Climate liars for the crooks they are. The dam is bursting and with the cold winters in store in the near future, on a world-wide basis, their gigantic fraud is dying.
Quote:
Where "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil" meet
Not Sylvia Night - November 11, 2009
That place, of course, is the world´s financial market.
"Human Caused Climate Change" is a financial scam, so is the "Peak Oil" paradigm of catastrophic energy shortages in the near future.
Oil and natural gas are not scarce, but actually abundant energy resources. They are also most likely of non-biological origin, as Russian scientists and oil companies have shown for over 50 years.
While the myth of "Global Warming" is used to create new revenues for the financial elites, the myth of a limited supply of "fossil fuels" had been used for creating large profits in the past.
The western financial elites hope to secure those profits in the future by regulating the use of oil, gas and coal through internationally agreed upon CO2 reduction measures, carbon trade agreements and by monopolizing tomorrow´s nuclear energy market. This is one reason why Iran´s civilian nuclear energy program is being so severely opposed by all the governments of the western world that seek to dominate export markets for nuclear installations from India to Brazil. A primary reason also is Israel's demand that it retain technological superiority.
As we have seen in the last post, the theory of "Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming" neither originated from a large group of scientists nor from environmental grass-roots organizations. Instead it was a long discarded 19th century hypothesis, which was taken out of the dustbin and then proposed by the 1979 British UN Ambassador, who "tickled" the ambition-streak of Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time.
We also saw, that the main argument for a human caused Climate Change, the so-called "Hockey-Stick", has been scientifically discredited for years.
Using mostly official IPCC charts and other research done by the UN "Global Warming" scientists themselves, Dr.David Evans of Science Speak points out that, while there is evidence for some warming of the planet in the last century, there is indeed No Evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming
And with this conclusion Evans stands in agreement with over 650 leading scientists who, while attending the UN Climate Conference in Poland, scoffed at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Those international scientists are then quoted in a US-Senate EPW Minority report.
But in spite of more and more counter arguments by the scientific community, especially from climatologists, the "Climate Change" bills, mandating carbon reduction for individuals and industries are rammed through practically all parliaments in the industrialized world.
We once again have to look at the money trail to explain the reasons for this paradox:
The New York Times, reported on November 12, 2008
Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon Offsets
Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area......
Carbon offsets are projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions — thus potentially counterbalancing a rise in emissions elsewhere. Planting trees are the most obvious offset; but other examples include capturing methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from a coal mine, or undertaking a qualified energy-efficiency project. Offsets are used in the European carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system, but have been slow to catch on in this country, where carbon trading is largely voluntary.
And on February 26, 2008 Chris Morrison from the Green Beat branch of the investment website Venture Beat writes:
Will carbon-trading happen? Goldman hopes so, backs APX
APX, a Silicon Valley company that certifies carbon and emissions offset certificates, and which is well-placed to support carbon-trading markets when they emerge, has gotten backing from Goldman Sachs in a $14 million investment, VentureBeat has learned.
Carbon trading is a growing business that could someday come to resemble the world’s largest financial markets.
Today’s emissions markets are generally small and fragmented. In regional U.S. energy markets, utilities are already required to buy electricity from alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar or wind. To prove their use of alternative energy, they’re required to file a certificate tracking their acquisition of the energy units. So this is the beginning of a “transfer” regime that could grow into more.
Meantime, carbon offsetting markets, that corporations buy credits from, are currently voluntary, but in anticipation of future government regulation, they often require similar certifying schemes. However, the source of offsets can vary widely, from alternative energy generation to tree planting projects.
APX acts as part of the intermediary chain between buyer and seller, doing the work of tracking serial numbers on these certificates and the accounts they go into. It’s not glamorous, but having an efficient, scalable back-end will be one of the requirements for building a multi-billion dollar market, as emissions trading may well become.
As today’s small, scattered emissions trading markets grow, they may come to resemble the complex business and regulatory ecosystems of the futures and equities markets, which include various behind-the-scenes businesses similar to APX.
Another indicator that some very serious businesses are becoming involved is one of the new investors in the company’s latest funding: Goldman Sachs, a heavyweight in the New York financial markets.
The largest financial corporation in the world buys into both the "carbon-offset" as well as into the "carbon-trading" market, which is expected to become a multi-billion dollar business.
The reduction of the use of hydro-carbon energy will make large profits to be funneled once again into the financial markets, which then will substitute for the profits the oil companies, in cohorts with the oil producing countries, used to make. While energy demand is fairly inelastic, a generalized increase in end user cost will enrich the well placed.
Why, if "human caused climate change" is a scam, is this substitution necessary?
Because slowly but certainly the knowledge emerges, that these large oil-profits of the past had also been based on a scam - the scam of "resource depletion" caused by over-exploitation of resources due to "exponential global population growth".
The myth of" increasing and catastrophic resource shortages" was initially promoted by the Rockefeller associated "Club of Rome".
Nowadays this scam is most often called the "Peak Oil" problem.
The "Peak Oil" propagandists tell us that oil, as well as natural gas-production, has either already peaked or will in the very near future. After reaching the peak of production a fast decline would make "cheap energy" increasingly scarce. As a consequence, the global economy, dependent on "cheap energy", would contract and eventually crash. This would then cause wide-spread devastation for most of us. And for billions of people all over the globe it would cause constant food-shortages and even starvation.
The catastrophic consequences to global food-production by shortages of oil and gas as energy resources is the first false paradigm promoted by the "Peak Oil" myth.
The second one is, that the world´s economic production is vitally dependent on energy being "cheap".
The reality is, that it isn´t the world´s real, physical economy but the global financial markets which are dependent on energy-resources being "cheap". For today´s actual consumers of energy, for private, industrial or public consumers, oil and gas aren´t actually that "cheap".
It is the large difference between production costs and consumer prices of oil and gas, which for a long time have kept the snake-oil sellers of the big financial corporations afloat. This high price/cost difference in oil production in the past was forced unto global consumers by the monopoly power the large oil-corporations had on the business and the coercive power their main shareholders had on governments all over the world.
The same "monopoly" game is now being started with nuclear energy production, as Dutch researcher Rudo de Ruijter points out in
US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in.
Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans.
However, like the "man-made Global Warming" myth, the "Peak-Oil" myth is now being contradicted by the facts, which even part of the mainstream media can no longer ignore:
On January 18, 2008 the British Times reports:
World not running out of oil, say experts
A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.
Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.
But not only do western experts now concede, that there is far more oil in the ground, than they have previously admitted to, but there are also a growing number of western geologists who finally are starting to challenge the 18th century theory of "fossil" fuel, something the Russians have done over half a century ago.
William Engdahl writes about this in his "Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer"
Engdahl explains that for the Soviets it actually was "Necessity" which became "the mother of invention"
In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.
Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?
In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
The Soviets then started to tailor their oil-explorations accordingly:
Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.
A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”...
While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.
They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain the Russian oil-theory became far more available to scientists and lay people in the western world. Enthusiastically embracing free-market doctrines in the 1990s the Russian oil experts initially offered to share their expertise with the western world. But they were rebuffed in their overtures.
Obviously a theory which contradicts the scarcity myth would cut into the profits of the western oil-corporations.
The Russian oil-companies at home, however, kept on working the same way they had done for nearly half a century. Well after the dissolution of the USSR, in the early 1990’s, they went on using the a-biotic petroleum theory
to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.
And while the well-paid scientists of the western oil-companies rejected the theory, others did not. Raymond J. Learsy quotes the western proponents of the abiotic oil-theory in the Huffington Post:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or anywhere else)...
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance.
Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, - as must likewise all matter.
In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as "theories" in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.
The wall western multinational oil-companies had put up against scientifically based research to save their scarcity paradigm is obviously crumbling as was to be expected at least since the fall of the Iron Wall. More and more western scientific research supporting the long established and well tested Russian theories is now being published, as in the right-wing WorldNetDaily, which cites geologist and researcher Giora Proskurowski who, in a study published in Science Magazine
presented new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil...
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons....
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Another piece of evidence for the abiotic origin of oil, are several experimental studies done recently:
Alexander Goncharov, a geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution ()
and his colleagues in Russia and Sweden have experimentally shown for the first time that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be produced under the pressure and temperature conditions of the upper mantle, the slightly viscous layer of the earth directly below the crust. Their research was published () in Nature Geoscience.
"Our results provide a link which was previously missing or was doubtful because of a lack of in situ measurements ... for the upper mantle conditions," Goncharov said. "Thus, our work suggests there is a possibility for the [abiogenic] oil formation in the deep earth and that there is a potential to find more oil fields than expected if one assumes that oil could be formed only biogenically."
The researchers used a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source to subject methane -- a primary component of natural gas -- to conditions that mimic the earth at 40 to 95 miles deep...................
Under those conditions, the methane reacted and formed petrochemical feedstock ethane and propane and butane, which are used as fuels, as well as molecular hydrogen and graphite. When the ethane was subjected to the same conditions, it formed methane, suggesting heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep under the earth's surface.
Barry Katz, a geochemist at Chevron Corp., agreed.
"I don't disagree with the idea," Katz said. "I disagree with the idea of commercial quantities. There's no question that it's coming out of the system. However, it's not coming out in commercial quantities."
Katz is acting like a true corporate hack. Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese oil producers have proved that there is indeed oil to be found at great depth and in commercial quantities.
According to an interview with oil-expert Dr. Kenney
Russian and Ukrainian scientists found
that a continuous reaction occurs naturally at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time. The high pressure causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields.
As the "Global Warming" myth is designed to put a large economic burden on the world population and hinder developing countries from rising up from poverty, so would the acceptance of the "Peak Oil" myth become the justification for endless wars in the Middle East, South America or the Caucasus, where we in the West are told we need to protect the "scarce resources" from the grab of the Chinese.
Posted by atheo at 1:17 PM
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:01 am Post subject:
Is there no global problem that blogscience cannot easily dismiss, just like that?
No mention of the important question which, even if the abiotic process were real, is at what geological timescale does it operate at?
It's hardly surprising that blogscientists never have more than a few unconnected random quotes rather than anything of substance to refer their readers to.
That'd be because they aren't science at all, but just bloggers doing their part in conditioning public opinion because there are plenty out there desperate to be ressured everything will be OK. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject:
It's rare that we get to see such naked propaganda posted here, at least since the JREF invasion a few years ago.
For a compilation of most denier nonsense 'talking points' from global cooling, to urban heat islands, to a ceiling on the quantity of CO2 that has an effect, already covered and exposed in this thread,
be sure to check out banjo7's source video's homepage:
http://www.nocapandtrade.us/index.htm
It's worth making a mental note that all these are easily propagated blogscience lies that can't rattle up a single peer reviewed science paper between them, yet are presumably accepted as gospel truth by banjo7 and his busy band of fellow posters across the blogosphere.
The website's subliminal wallpaper messages are also noteworthy - as are the absence of the supposed documents that the video's 'figures' are taken from, let alone any basis for the statements so boldly proclaimed.
For sheer in-your-face denial of reality, this is right up there with Kollerstrom's 'elegant swimming pools of Aushwitz', itself the only
time that the words 'elegant' and 'Auschwitz' have ever appeared in the same sentence together.
Some of you may recall the recent petition by leading deniers Fred Singer and Will Happer amongst others to overturn the American Physical Society's statement on man made global warming.
While the APS deliberated on the petition, the deniers made the most of it at their conferences and speeches.
For example, on August 19, Fred Singer gave talk to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, that claimed:
Breatkthru: APS to Modify Climate Statement (2nd page) and later (p.30) there’s a whole slide on APS:
“American Physical Society (APS) Statement on Climate Change
Double Breakthrough:
This is the first time a professional scientific society has agreed to reconsider an alarmist policy statement on climate change. http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=physicsfrontline.wordpress. com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmnfreemarketinstitute.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads% 2F2009%2F08%2FFred-Singer.pdf
Actually that last bit is pure theatre, because as the APS itself says in its response. "The Society is always open to review of its statements when significant numbers of its members request it to do so".
In the meantime the APS has considered the petition and delivered its verdict:
APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement
"WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.
The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.
The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement.
The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.
The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone. POPA regularly reviews all APS statements to ensure that they are relevant and up-to-date regarding new scientific findings.
Appointed by APS President Cherry Murray and chaired by MIT Physicist Daniel Kleppner, the committee examined the statement during the past four months. Dr. Kleppner’s committee reached its conclusion based upon a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research.
APS members were also given an opportunity to advise the Council on the matter. On Nov. 8, the Council voted, accepting the committee’s recommendation to reject the proposed statement and refer the original statement to POPA for review.
The statement is currently on the front page of the Society's website.
http://www.aps.org/
And the point of the whole exercise (besides the generating of some tawdry attention-seeking denier media coverage) still stands:
"American Physical Society
National Policy 07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.
Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases.
They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.
We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
Of course, they could all be lizards - in which case, get lost and stop wasting your time here with me.
I don't normally play the numbers game, being fond of believing that most intelligent people don't need the reassurance of being part of a gang and can consider information without such crutches.
But seeing as banjoboy is again harping on about numbers, I can see I'll have to.
"The results of a survey of 3,146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.
The graph below shows the results for this question:
Note that this is in addition to the dozens and dozens of statements by the long list of National Academies of Science for most major countries, with excerpts from their supportive statements included which can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
World getting cooler, not warmer, insists Bellamy
The Irish Times - Wednesday, November 11, 2009
RONAN McGREEVY
WORLD-RENOWNED botanist and broadcaster Prof David Bellamy has predicted the world will get cooler over the next 30 years rather than warmer, as many climate scientists have predicted.
He said a period of global cooling had already begun, citing evidence that the Alps had more snow last winter than at any time for the last 26 years.
Prof Bellamy has been one of the best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, despite being an environmentalist. Yesterday, as patron of the Tree Appeal, he helped children at Cabinteely Community School to plant trees. The initiative aims to plant 100,000 trees in the UK and Ireland to encourage biodiversity and to act as a learning resource.
Prof Bellamy said temperature fluctuations are part of the natural process. “The argument [for man-made global warming] is going downhill. Climate change is a completely natural thing. It is based on the sun, and at the moment we are into the 24th sun cycle and there has been no sunspots for two years. The last time that happened, the Thames froze over.”
Prof Bellamy said the climate conference at Copenhagen will fail, and that many countries were already trying to pull out of it.
He has been criticised repeatedly by the scientific community for his views. Prof William Reville, who writes in this newspaper, said changes in the sun had affected global temperatures in the past, but the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 1970s while global warming continued.
"changes in the sun had affected global temperatures in the past, but the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 1970s while global warming continued"
Don't you just love their rubbish!! _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
NCDC: October USA – temperature 3rd coldest on record, wettest ever on record
From the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), State of the Climate, National Overview, October 2009:
Temperature Highlights – October
* The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
* For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation’s nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
* Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
"For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. "
But its LOCAL!!! Its just that its local everywhere!!! Its Global Warming that is causing the cold. What's difficult to understand about that??? Forget the weather - its the CLIMATE!!! Durrrrr.... _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony
Catainia photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image
Spotless Cueball: Catania observatory photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image
While the sun sleeps
Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark
While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.
But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.
"The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.
It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.
So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
"Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. "
Professors - what do they know? The man is a local weatherman who denies the Holocaust and has the wrong politics. He's obviously funded by big oil! Has he got an Oscar? NO!! Ignore the charlatan. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Death By Treaty
Lord Monckton on the Crisis of Copenhagen
James Corbett, The Corbett Report, 27 October, 2009
In an interview with The Corbett Report today, Lord Monckton of Brenchley went further than ever before in describing what is so worrying about the new climate change treaty that UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signatories are getting set to commit to this December: "This treaty is designed under the name, of course, of pretending that there is a problem with climate," he said. "It's aiming to set up a world government that will have the power to control all the world's financial and other markets."
The draft text of the treaty released earlier this month contains clauses that make it a threat not only to national sovereignty but to the liberty and democracy of the signatories: "I think the reason they are doing this is that it gives the dictators complete control over the economies of all nations," Lord Monckton told The Corbett Report via cell phone. Listen to the interview in the player below or click here to download the mp3 (right click and 'Save As').
Lord Monckton is by no means the only one sounding the alarm on Copenhagen or its agenda. As we have pointed out before, the redistribution of wealth to lesser developed nations in the name of reducing carbon is neither a redistribution of wealth to lesser developed nations nor will it reduce carbon. Carbon trading is, to the contrary, a scheme being set up by and for the interests of elite banking interests and others of Malthusian bent. Alex Jones' new documentary, Fall of the Republic makes this point quite well in the following excerpt from The Corbett Report's Economics 101 series:
In effect, as Lord Monckton points out in the interview, the proposed Copenhagen treaty promises to fold the worst aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill in with the worst aspects of the Law of the Sea Treaty, and all under the auspices of a new world governmental body that, being a part of the UN, is inherently undemocratic. Concerned citizens are urged to voice their opposition to this monstrous undermining of national sovereignty by contacting the White House or their own national government, signing an Instrument of Repudiation as outlined by Lord Monckton at the end of the interview, or sending this information out to others to begin organizing political action.
""This treaty is designed under the name, of course, of pretending that there is a problem with climate," he said. "It's aiming to set up a world government that will have the power to control all the world's financial and other markets.""
And if they get away with it we are well and truly buggered. Exposing the increasingly OBVIOUS fraud of the climate liars is the key to exposing the rest of the Elite's agenda and their other crimes including 9/11. As the dam bursts on the climate scam and people become aware of just how powerful and evil the liars are, people will be able to grasp the extent of the rest of the "elite's" evil doing. No wonder their agents are so desperate to defend the lie. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
"changes in the sun had affected global temperatures in the past, but the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 1970s while global warming continued"[/b]
Don't you just love their rubbish!!
[/quote]
It's been shown within the past two pages.
That it's beyond your comprehension only shows that denial is for dumbos. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
But its LOCAL!!! Its just that its local everywhere!!! Its Global Warming that is causing the cold. What's difficult to understand about that??? Forget the weather - its the CLIMATE!!! Durrrrr....
That this inflated opinion of the USA being of any geographical importance has been shown to be wrong (with reason included) within the last two pages of this thread.
Thank you for demonstrating - yet again - the kind of dumbo you are that believes threadbare denier site lies. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Professors - what do they know? The man is a local weatherman who denies the Holocaust and has the wrong politics. He's obviously funded by big oil! Has he got an Oscar? NO!! Ignore the charlatan.
It doesn't matter who he is, it depends on the evidence.
You might be impressed, but I just check the temperature and solar charts posted within the previous two pages of this thread and know he's talking ca-ca.
You - like everybody else reading this thread know this already.
Thanks for playing, dumbo. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
So here we have the REAL reason for the "Man-made Climate Change" scam.
And if they get away with it we are well and truly buggered. Exposing the increasingly OBVIOUS fraud of the climate liars is the key to exposing the rest of the Elite's agenda and their other crimes including 9/11. As the dam bursts on the climate scam and people become aware of just how powerful and evil the liars are, people will be able to grasp the extent of the rest of the "elite's" evil doing. No wonder their agents are so desperate to defend the lie.
The all-too-obvious fraud is the one you're backing, banjoboy.
Wild, impossible contradictions and ignoring evidence to the contrary never fooled even the stupidest fool.
Present company excepted.
Yet still you plough on as if repetition of the same old disproven assertions often enough is the secret.
Wrong, dumbass, although it probably does work on you, what with having such a low discrimination threshhold.
I suppose you're dull and unimaginative too, and know no other way,
although I do appreciate you showing us all how totally uncomprehending you have to be to believe any of what you post.
Here's the thing: what the world requires above all else is an informed citizenry who can think logically and critically to deal with the information streams available to us today and the powerplays they describe.
You fail badly, being capable of neither.
You can neither find information, nor interpret it.
You settle for 'opinions', and fondly imagine they're the same thing.
But they ain't. If stupid was a tradeable commodity, you'd be laughing.
I can't see any of your occasional fellow-travellers having the New Stasi shaking in their boots either. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject:
Did they define what they meant by “significant”?
From Wikipedia: In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance... The use of the word significance in statistics is different from the standard one, which suggests that something is important or meaningful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
chek wrote:
"The results of a survey of 3,146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.
The graph below shows the results for this question:
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:
QuitTheirClogs wrote:
Did they define what they meant by “significant”?
According to the linked .pdf they don't specify.
With the general survey being of scientists working in Earth Sciences we can assume with a high degree of probability that they will have of necessity studied statistical method to some useful extent, and would understand the term in its mathematical context.
But with an input from the general public included as well, I would suggest the intended meaning is in terms of 'impact that has measureable effect'.
Or you could ask them directly. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
UAH global temperature anomaly – hitting the slopes
Mathematician Luboš Motl takes on the new UAH data (source here) and some current thinking about slopes in global climate by adding his own perspective and analysis. Be sure to visit his blog and leave some comments for him – Anthony
UAH MSU has officially released their June 2009 data. This time, they’re faster than RSS MSU. The anomaly was +0.001 °C, meaning that the global temperature was essentially equal to the average June temperature since 1979. June 2009 actually belonged to the cooler half of the Junes since 1979.
Global warming is supposed to exist and to be bad. Sometimes, we hear that global warming causes cooling. In this case, global warming causes global averageness. In all three cases, it is bad news. The three main enemies of environmentalism are warm weather, cool weather, and average weather.
It is not a coincidence that these enemies are very similar to the four main enemies of communism. The four main enemies that were spoiling the success of communism were Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. See Anthony Watts’ blog for additional discussion.
rest of article at above lnk. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
