Prison Planet
December 14, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.
Following a discussion entitled �A Global CO2 Tax," a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of �a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations,� to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).
Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to �contribute significantly more to this global fund." He also added, �It is very essential to tax coal.�
The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund". What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty.
Seven years ago former French President Jacques Chirac said the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." The imminent agreement arising out of the Bali summit will be one of the final nails in the coffin aimed at decimating the middle class and the right of free people to strive for prosperity and happiness without laboring under suffocating serfdom imposed by unelected elitists.
As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year , "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move as a futile bureaucratic scheme, pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
In comparison, half that number - just 52 scientists - participated in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007.
In the letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the scientists state, �Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.�
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."
The letter goes into detail about several conclusions of the IPCC report that are completely contradicted by recent major scientific studies.
Read the full letter here .
Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming"consensus" view.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
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
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für
Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
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
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Skeptical Climate Scientists Shunned At UN Bali Meeting
Prison Planet December 12, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The self-proclaimed "consensus" behind man-made global warming is one enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as is again being proven by media coverage of the latest UN meeting in Bali, where skeptical climate scientists are being shunned and ignored if they dare express an opposing viewpoint.
Representatives of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition , which include a member of the IPCC since its inception in 1990, were almost barred from attending the meeting when their credentials were rejected by UN officials.
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," said climate researcher and former British government cabinet member Christopher Monckton.
Australian scientist Dr. David Evans slammed the conference as a "circus" and warned that the UN's politicization of science had created a dangerous atmosphere.
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction, away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, " Evans explained.
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.
Evans cited a report in this month's International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, who has been involved in vetting IPCC reports since its inception in 1990, shattered the much vaunted infallibility of the IPCC, which is routinely put forward as evidence that "the debate is over" about the man-made causes of global warming.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," said Gray.
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails." "It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
Dr. William Alexander, Emeritus Professor of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned that the UN's drive to force poorer countries to adopt policies on climate change would increase poverty and lead to more death.
Owen McShane agreed, arguing that such policies will lead to financial ruin for struggling countries.
"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," said McShane.
Have you heard any of these climate experts quoted in any mainstream media report about the Bali meeting? Do a Google search - there are no corporate media reports covering their speeches and presentations.
Contrast this with the amount of attention lavished on those who push the UN's pre-determined, politicized and unscientific rhetoric - the chicken little sky is falling propaganda about the coming global warming apocalypse.
This is how the "consensus" scam is maintained - any dissenting view is discouraged, shunned and ignored, just as it was when the "consensus" view that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe was aggressively upheld as scientific fact.
Paul Joseph Watson
The self-proclaimed "consensus" behind man-made global warming is one enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as is again being proven by media coverage of the latest UN meeting in Bali, where skeptical climate scientists are being shunned and ignored if they dare express an opposing viewpoint.
Representatives of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition , which include a member of the IPCC since its inception in 1990, were almost barred from attending the meeting when their credentials were rejected by UN officials.
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," said climate researcher and former British government cabinet member Christopher Monckton.
Australian scientist Dr. David Evans slammed the conference as a "circus" and warned that the UN's politicization of science had created a dangerous atmosphere.
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction, away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, " Evans explained.
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.
Evans cited a report in this month's International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, who has been involved in vetting IPCC reports since its inception in 1990, shattered the much vaunted infallibility of the IPCC, which is routinely put forward as evidence that "the debate is over" about the man-made causes of global warming.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," said Gray.
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails." "It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
Dr. William Alexander, Emeritus Professor of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned that the UN's drive to force poorer countries to adopt policies on climate change would increase poverty and lead to more death.
Owen McShane agreed, arguing that such policies will lead to financial ruin for struggling countries.
"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," said McShane.
Have you heard any of these climate experts quoted in any mainstream media report about the Bali meeting? Do a Google search - there are no corporate media reports covering their speeches and presentations.
Contrast this with the amount of attention lavished on those who push the UN's pre-determined, politicized and unscientific rhetoric - the chicken little sky is falling propaganda about the coming global warming apocalypse.
This is how the "consensus" scam is maintained - any dissenting view is discouraged, shunned and ignored, just as it was when the "consensus" view that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe was aggressively upheld as scientific fact.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Prison Planet December 11, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.
The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.
Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society .
"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.
Co-author John Christy said: "Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless, but very costly."
The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system , from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.
Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.
In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra , but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.
Paul Joseph Watson
The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.
The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.
Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society .
"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.
Co-author John Christy said: "Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless, but very costly."
The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system , from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.
Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.
In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra , but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
JAMES M. TAYLOR
Chicago Sun Times
Sunday July 1, 2007
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
Chicago Sun Times
Sunday July 1, 2007
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
Greenhouse gasses drive climate change is a myth, say scientists
JULIE WHELDON
UK Daily Mail
Monday, March 5, 2007
Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.
"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."
UK Daily Mail
Monday, March 5, 2007
Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.
"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."
Manmade Global warming 'irrational': Claim Two Ottowa scientists
Stephanie Stein
Standard-Freeholder
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.
Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.
"The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson.
Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.
"All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings.
Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.
"The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris.
"They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged.
"Go after something real and tangible like air pollution."
Standard-Freeholder
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.
Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.
"The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson.
Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.
"All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings.
Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.
"The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris.
"They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged.
"Go after something real and tangible like air pollution."
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
UPI
March 15, 2007
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
March 15, 2007
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
German Biologist: Global Warming Is Good For US
Biologist Josef Reichholf discusses the benefits of a warmer climate for animals and plants, large cities as centers of biological diversity and the myth of the return of malaria.
Josef Reichholf is unconvinced by those who argue that global warming will threaten animals and plants with extinction, and cause malaria to spread in Europe.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Reichholf, are you worried about global warming?
Josef Reichholf: No. Personally, I'm even looking forward to a milder climate. But it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.
SPIEGEL: Where does your optimism come from?
Reichholf: The vast majority of people today already live under warmer and, in many cases, far more extreme conditions than we pampered Central Europeans. Homo sapiens is the only biological species that can handle practically any type of climate on earth -- from the deserts to the polar regions, from the constantly humid tropics to the high altitudes of the Andes. Not even the animals that follow human society most closely, the rats, have developed such an astonishing ability to adapt in the course of evolution.
SPIEGEL: In what sort of climate does man feel most comfortable?
Reichholf: Biologically speaking, we are children of the tropics. Wherever man lives, he artificially creates tropical living conditions. We do this with warm clothing, and with heated offices and homes. A tropical temperature of about 27 degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit) constantly prevails underneath our clothing.
SPIEGEL: But, as an ecologist, aren't you at least concerned about animals and plants?
Reichholf: Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes. A typical example is the misleading debate over catastrophic flooding, which is in fact caused by too much development along rivers and not by more extreme weather events, which we can't change anyway.
SPIEGEL: What do you see as the greatest threat to plants and animals?
Reichholf: Industrial agriculture is the number one killer of species in Germany. With their monocultures and over-fertilized fields, farmers have radically impaired the living conditions for many animals and plants. Many species have already fled from the countryside to the cities, which have been transformed into havens of biodiversity. We are also seeing another interesting phenomenon: Major cities, like Hamburg, Berlin and Munich, have formed heat islands where the climate has been two or three degrees warmer than in the surrounding countryside for decades. If higher temperatures are truly so bad, why do more and more animals and plants feel so comfortable in our cities?
SPIEGEL: And what is your view of the prognoses that global warming will cause up to 30 percent of all animal species to become extinct?
Reichholf: It's nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that the greenhouse effect could even help improve biodiversity in the long term?
Reichholf: Exactly. And this can also be clearly inferred from the insights of evolutionary biology. Biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north. This also explains why Europe has such a high capacity to absorb species from warmer regions. It just so happens that we have many unoccupied ecological niches in our less biodiverse part of the world.
SPIEGEL: In other words, for you global warming means more flourishing landscapes on the planet?
Reichholf: Indeed. When it becomes warmer, many species receive new habitats. The overall picture is clearly positive, as long as we don't destroy the newly developing habitats right away by intervening in nature in other ways. It's no accident that most of the species on Germany's red list of endangered species are the heat-loving species. Many of them could be given new opportunities to survive in Germany.
SPIEGEL: But aren't you underestimating the rapid pace of the current warming? Many animals and plants are unable to adapt quickly enough to a changing climate.
Reichholf: This claim is already contradicted by the fact that there have been much faster climate fluctuations in the past, which did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species. As a biologist, I can tell you that only the fewest animals and plants are accustomed to rigid climate conditions. Take our little wren, for example. Many would call it a sensitive little songbird. But the wren thrives just as well in Stockholm as it does in Munich or Rome. It even lives above the tree line in the Alps. The only places we don't see wrens are where there are no bushes or trees growing at all.
SPIEGEL: But there are certainly animals that live in very limited niches. For example, how would polar bears survive global warming?
Reichholf: Then let me ask you in return: How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? Perhaps Knut at the Berlin Zoo is an exception, but polar bears in the wild don't exactly survive by sucking on ice. Seals are the polar bear's most important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every spring. That's why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not because it's getting warmer. Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate.
SPIEGEL: Is there really no plant or animal species that isn't at risk of extinction because of a further rise in temperatures?
Reichholf: I certainly can't think of any. There are a few flatworms that can only exist in icy cold springs. These creatures do in fact appear to be disappearing in places where the springs are warming up. But this could also be a coincidence, because the closest relatives of these worms tolerate a much broader temperature spectrum.
SPIEGEL: Conversely, should we be worried that malaria, as a result of global warming, will break out in our latitudes once again?
Reichholf: That's another one of those myths. Many people truly believe that malaria will spread as temperatures rise. But malaria isn't even a true tropical disease. In the 19th century, thousands of people in Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and even Scandinavia, died of malaria, even though they had never gone abroad. That's because this disease was still prevalent in northern and central Europe in previous centuries. We only managed to eliminate malaria in Europe by quarantining the sick, improving hygiene and draining swamps. That's why I consider it virtually impossible that malaria would return to us purely because of climate change. If it does appear, it'll be because it has been brought in somewhere.
SPIEGEL: Why has it become a dogma that we should be afraid of warmer times?
Reichholf: It's a mystery to me. As recently as the 1960s, people were more concerned about a new ice age -- and that would indeed pose a great danger to us. The most catastrophic eras were those in which the weather became worse, not phases of warmer climates. Precisely because we have to feed a growing population on this planet, we should in fact embrace a warmer climate. In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival.
The interview was conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter.
Josef Reichholf is unconvinced by those who argue that global warming will threaten animals and plants with extinction, and cause malaria to spread in Europe.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Reichholf, are you worried about global warming?
Josef Reichholf: No. Personally, I'm even looking forward to a milder climate. But it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.
SPIEGEL: Where does your optimism come from?
Reichholf: The vast majority of people today already live under warmer and, in many cases, far more extreme conditions than we pampered Central Europeans. Homo sapiens is the only biological species that can handle practically any type of climate on earth -- from the deserts to the polar regions, from the constantly humid tropics to the high altitudes of the Andes. Not even the animals that follow human society most closely, the rats, have developed such an astonishing ability to adapt in the course of evolution.
SPIEGEL: In what sort of climate does man feel most comfortable?
Reichholf: Biologically speaking, we are children of the tropics. Wherever man lives, he artificially creates tropical living conditions. We do this with warm clothing, and with heated offices and homes. A tropical temperature of about 27 degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit) constantly prevails underneath our clothing.
SPIEGEL: But, as an ecologist, aren't you at least concerned about animals and plants?
Reichholf: Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes. A typical example is the misleading debate over catastrophic flooding, which is in fact caused by too much development along rivers and not by more extreme weather events, which we can't change anyway.
SPIEGEL: What do you see as the greatest threat to plants and animals?
Reichholf: Industrial agriculture is the number one killer of species in Germany. With their monocultures and over-fertilized fields, farmers have radically impaired the living conditions for many animals and plants. Many species have already fled from the countryside to the cities, which have been transformed into havens of biodiversity. We are also seeing another interesting phenomenon: Major cities, like Hamburg, Berlin and Munich, have formed heat islands where the climate has been two or three degrees warmer than in the surrounding countryside for decades. If higher temperatures are truly so bad, why do more and more animals and plants feel so comfortable in our cities?
SPIEGEL: And what is your view of the prognoses that global warming will cause up to 30 percent of all animal species to become extinct?
Reichholf: It's nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that the greenhouse effect could even help improve biodiversity in the long term?
Reichholf: Exactly. And this can also be clearly inferred from the insights of evolutionary biology. Biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north. This also explains why Europe has such a high capacity to absorb species from warmer regions. It just so happens that we have many unoccupied ecological niches in our less biodiverse part of the world.
SPIEGEL: In other words, for you global warming means more flourishing landscapes on the planet?
Reichholf: Indeed. When it becomes warmer, many species receive new habitats. The overall picture is clearly positive, as long as we don't destroy the newly developing habitats right away by intervening in nature in other ways. It's no accident that most of the species on Germany's red list of endangered species are the heat-loving species. Many of them could be given new opportunities to survive in Germany.
SPIEGEL: But aren't you underestimating the rapid pace of the current warming? Many animals and plants are unable to adapt quickly enough to a changing climate.
Reichholf: This claim is already contradicted by the fact that there have been much faster climate fluctuations in the past, which did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species. As a biologist, I can tell you that only the fewest animals and plants are accustomed to rigid climate conditions. Take our little wren, for example. Many would call it a sensitive little songbird. But the wren thrives just as well in Stockholm as it does in Munich or Rome. It even lives above the tree line in the Alps. The only places we don't see wrens are where there are no bushes or trees growing at all.
SPIEGEL: But there are certainly animals that live in very limited niches. For example, how would polar bears survive global warming?
Reichholf: Then let me ask you in return: How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? Perhaps Knut at the Berlin Zoo is an exception, but polar bears in the wild don't exactly survive by sucking on ice. Seals are the polar bear's most important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every spring. That's why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not because it's getting warmer. Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate.
SPIEGEL: Is there really no plant or animal species that isn't at risk of extinction because of a further rise in temperatures?
Reichholf: I certainly can't think of any. There are a few flatworms that can only exist in icy cold springs. These creatures do in fact appear to be disappearing in places where the springs are warming up. But this could also be a coincidence, because the closest relatives of these worms tolerate a much broader temperature spectrum.
SPIEGEL: Conversely, should we be worried that malaria, as a result of global warming, will break out in our latitudes once again?
Reichholf: That's another one of those myths. Many people truly believe that malaria will spread as temperatures rise. But malaria isn't even a true tropical disease. In the 19th century, thousands of people in Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and even Scandinavia, died of malaria, even though they had never gone abroad. That's because this disease was still prevalent in northern and central Europe in previous centuries. We only managed to eliminate malaria in Europe by quarantining the sick, improving hygiene and draining swamps. That's why I consider it virtually impossible that malaria would return to us purely because of climate change. If it does appear, it'll be because it has been brought in somewhere.
SPIEGEL: Why has it become a dogma that we should be afraid of warmer times?
Reichholf: It's a mystery to me. As recently as the 1960s, people were more concerned about a new ice age -- and that would indeed pose a great danger to us. The most catastrophic eras were those in which the weather became worse, not phases of warmer climates. Precisely because we have to feed a growing population on this planet, we should in fact embrace a warmer climate. In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival.
The interview was conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
National Geographic News
Friday, March 2, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
National Geographic News
Friday, March 2, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
Climate scientist says global warming stopped in 1998
Professor Bob Carter
Couriermail.com
Monday June 18, 2007
WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.
"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the
notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change
Couriermail.com
Monday June 18, 2007
WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.
"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the
notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change
UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it...
The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.
This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.
In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.
At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios. In other words, it was the result of political interference.
Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.
Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.
Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!
The late Roger Revelle, Professor Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “father” of the modern greenhouse theory Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, first Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service Chauncey Starr, Professor Emeritus, University of California, key figure in modern risk analysis
for…. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (1991) at http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/cosmos.html
Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT
for…. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Brian Tucker, former Chief of Atmospheric Research for CSIRO (Australian Government)
for.... A Rational Consideration of Global Warming (1996) at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm
The late William Nierenberg, former Director of Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
for.... Science and Engineering Policy and Who Cares? (1997) at http://people.delphi.com/saemet/mesc297.htm
Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS
for.... Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (1997-2000) at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html
Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willy Soon and Zachary W. Robinson
for..... Environmental Effects of Increased Environmental Carbon Dioxide (1998) at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
George Taylor, then President of the American Association of State Climatologists
for.... Comments on "New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising" (2000) at http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/nascomm.html
Paul Reiter, Chief Entomologist at the United States Dengue Research Laboratory
for.... Biting Back (2000) at http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225716
William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
for.... Get off Warming Bandwagon (2000) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm
Posted 9, March, 2001, updated 10, April. © 2001 Warwick Hughes
This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.
In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.
At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios. In other words, it was the result of political interference.
Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.
Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.
Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!
The late Roger Revelle, Professor Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “father” of the modern greenhouse theory Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, first Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service Chauncey Starr, Professor Emeritus, University of California, key figure in modern risk analysis
for…. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (1991) at http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/cosmos.html
Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT
for…. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Brian Tucker, former Chief of Atmospheric Research for CSIRO (Australian Government)
for.... A Rational Consideration of Global Warming (1996) at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm
The late William Nierenberg, former Director of Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
for.... Science and Engineering Policy and Who Cares? (1997) at http://people.delphi.com/saemet/mesc297.htm
Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS
for.... Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (1997-2000) at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html
Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willy Soon and Zachary W. Robinson
for..... Environmental Effects of Increased Environmental Carbon Dioxide (1998) at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
George Taylor, then President of the American Association of State Climatologists
for.... Comments on "New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising" (2000) at http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/nascomm.html
Paul Reiter, Chief Entomologist at the United States Dengue Research Laboratory
for.... Biting Back (2000) at http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225716
William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
for.... Get off Warming Bandwagon (2000) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm
Posted 9, March, 2001, updated 10, April. © 2001 Warwick Hughes
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Prison Planet December 4, 2007 Paul Joseph Watson
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
click here for full article
Monday, December 3, 2007
Handcuffed Woman Tased in Police Station
TruthNews December 3, 2007
Kurt Nimmo
It should be obvious by now that cops and tasers do not go together. It appears far too many cops use the devices to electrocute people simply because they refuse to cooperate, not because they pose a threat to the officers.
click below for video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8b3Z1lbHpo
Kurt Nimmo
It should be obvious by now that cops and tasers do not go together. It appears far too many cops use the devices to electrocute people simply because they refuse to cooperate, not because they pose a threat to the officers.
click below for video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8b3Z1lbHpo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)