MAN-MADE carbon emissions are staving off a new ice age, says a leading environmental scientist.
Climate-change expert Dr James Lovelock says the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet are likely to prevent a big freeze that could last millions of years.
In a talk at London’s Science Museum Dr Lovelock said the balance of nature was in charge of the environment.
He said: “We’re just fiddling around. It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age.
“If we hadn’t appeared on the earth, it would be due to go through another ice age and we can look at our part as holding that up.
“I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing.
“We’re not guilty, we never intended to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, it’s just something we did.”
Britons have been warned to brace themselves for an increase in food prices as plunging temperatures leave farmers unable to harvest vegetables and hauliers struggle to distribute fresh produce.
Gordon Brown, who will chair a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee early this week to discuss the freeze, was today forced to reassure the country that it would not run out of gas or grit for its roads during the coldest weather in 30 years.
Police confirmed today that the weather-related death toll had risen to 26. A 90-year-old woman froze to death in her garden near Barnsley after falling in the snow. Widow Mary Priestland was discovered when her neighbour called round to make her tea. A 42-year-old Newcastle woman died after being found lying in the snow this morning. She had told her family she was going for a walk at 7pm on Friday.
Concerns have now switched to food supply. Sub-zero temperatures have made it impossible to extract some vegetables from the ground. Producers of brussels sprouts and cabbages are all reporting problems with harvesting. Cauliflowers are said to have turned to “mush” in the sustained frost, with the result that only imported ones are available – at more than £2 each.
“Food is selling fast and there is a problem with replenishing it,” said Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses. “One business I spoke to said it was like Christmas Eve, with people rushing to buy up food. This will inevitably have an impact on food prices.”
Food prices had already started to edge up after a sustained period of low inflation. Food inflation increased by 3.7% in December, up from 2.8% in November, said the British Retail Consortium.
In Ireland, 6,000 acres of potatoes remains unharvested and there are claims that up to three-quarters of the crop may be ruined. Potato growers in Northern Ireland say they are facing some of the biggest losses in recent history because of frost damage.
Meanwhile, greengrocers in some of the worst-hit areas are reporting shortages, with the price of carrots and parsnips reportedly rising by 30% in some small shops. A spokesman for the National Farmers’ Union said: “There are isolated examples of farms struggling to get milk supplies out, but so far the majority of farmers, although finding it difficult, are getting on with the job.” Milk suppliers in Somerset said they feared they may have to dump 100,000 litres of organic milk because tankers could not get through.
In a move that underscores the severity of the situation, on Monday the government will permit an emergency relaxation of European laws regulating the driving hours for hauliers involved in the distribution of animal feed. Under the temporary rules, the hauliers will be allowed to drive for 10 hours rather than the EU maximum of nine. There will also be a reduction in their mandatory daily rest requirements, from 11 to nine hours.
Today, the prime minister insisted gas supplies were not running out, despite record levels of demand. In a podcast from Downing Street, Brown said: “I can assure you: supplies are not running out. We’ve got plenty of gas in our own backyard – the North Sea – and we also have access to the large reserves in Norway and Netherlands.”
Last week, nearly 100 large businesses were forced to stop using gas in an attempt to conserve supplies.
Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.
They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.
And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder.
Weather patterns were more like those in the late 1970s, experts said, while Met Office figures released on Monday are expected to show that the country is experiencing the coldest winter for up to 25 years.
On New Year’s Day 10 extreme weather warnings were in place, with heavy snow expected in northern England and Scotland.
Despite New Year celebrations passing off mostly unaffected by the weather, drivers in parts of the country, particularly areas of Northumberland, Cumbria and the Scottish Highlands, were warned not to travel unless absolutely necessary.
The continued freezing temperatures did not signal bad news for everyone however. CairnGorm Mountain said it has had its best Christmas holiday season in 14 years.
With heavy snow in the area, the resort said that over a four-day period following Christmas Day it has had more than 8,000 skiers and snowboarders using its runs – including 800 on New Year’s Eve.
Over 15,000 skiers have used the resort since the start of December, compared to 2,000 last year.
A spokesman for the Met Office said: “It is certainly a while since we had cold weather like this and there isn’t any sign of any milder weather on the way.”
Considerable amounts of “showery snow” is expected over Scotland and eastern England over the coming days, he said, whilst the rest of the United Kingdom would remains dry but very cold.
He added that temperatures in the Scottish highlands could dip to minus 16 degrees while even southern areas of England could see lows of minus 7.
The cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years.
Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said: “It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years.
“It’s going to be very cold the for the next 10 days and although there could be a milder spell at some stage the indications are that the second half of the month will be even colder.”
This is what the Global Warmists don’t want you to see, if people only knew the climate temperatures 12,000 years ago they would be glad to live on a planet that is livable and not in an Ice Age. If you look at the charts in this video it will show you how lucky we are to live in a long and relatively warm period that is somewhat constant even though earths temperatures have not increased in the past 15 years.
It didn’t take long for half of the United States to get slammed with snow (December 11, 2009), last year on December 11, 2008 the U.S. was only covered in 29% of snow. Next week will be even more snow-packed and temperatures even more miserable then last year.
A blizzard has blanketed pretty much all of the Upper Midwest, expecting 16 inches of snow in some areas of the country. The cold this year is so serious that the governor of Wisconsin declared a state of emergency.
Total Solar Irradiance over time in watts per square Variation in the TSI during the period 1978 to 2008 (heavy line) and its bicentennial component (dash line), revealed by us. Distinct short-term upward excursions are caused by the passage of faculae on the solar disk, and downward excursions by the passage of sunspot groups.
Co2 is ‘not guilty’, climate change is a natural earthly occurrence that is controlled by solar cycles. We are currently in a dangerous cooling period as the sun is inactive and could last several decades.
(Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock) Dr. Abdussamatov is featured on page 140 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming. Also see “Related Links” below.)
Key Excerpts: Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. […] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. […] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. […] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
Excerpts: Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
Life on earth completely depends on solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of solar energy received per second over one square meter above the atmosphere at the distance of the Earth from the Sun (149 597 892 km), was named the solar constant.
Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the total solar irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years. Wolf introduced an index (“W”) of the relative number of sunspots, computed as the sum of 10 times number of sunspot groups plus the total number of spots in all groups. This number has been regularly measured since 1849. Drawing on the work of professional astronomers and the observations of amateurs (which are of uncertain reliability) Wolf worked out a reconstruction of monthly values from 1749 as well as annual values from 1700. Today, the reconstruction of this time series stretches back to 1611. It has an eleven-year cycle of recurrence as well as other cycles related to onset and development of individual sunspot groups: changes in the fraction of the solar surface occupied by faculae, the frequency of prominences, and other phenomena in the solar chromosphere and corona.
Analyzing the long record of sunspot numbers, the English astronomer Walter Maunder in 1893 came to the conclusion that from 1645 to 1715 sunspots had been generally absent. Over the thirty-year period of the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time counted only about 50 spots. Usually, over that length of time, about 50,000 sunspots would appear. Today, it has been established that such minima have repeatedly occurred in the past. It is also known that the Maunder Minimum accompanied the coldest phase of a global temperature dip, physically measured in Europe and other regions, the most severe such dip for several millennia, which stretched from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries (now known as the Little Ice Age).
The search for a relationship between large climate variations and phenomena observed in the Sun led to an interest in finding a connection between periods of change in the terrestrial climate and corresponding significant changes in the level of observed solar activity, because the sunspot number is the only index that has been measured over a long period of time.
Determinative role of the Sun in variations in the climate of the Earth
The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990’s began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out.
Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop (Fig. 7, 11). Meantime the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over these years has grown by more than 4%, and in 2006 many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July – September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2 (Fig. 1).
For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.
[…]
Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.-Phil Jones
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. -Kevin Trenberth
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. -Ben Santer
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….” -Michael E. Mann
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority..:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” -Michael E. Mann
“ I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” -Phil Jones
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” -Phil Jones
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Maurice Strong, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” –Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” –Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
A prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed “ClimateGate”.
Australian geologist and long time opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Ian Plimer, has condemned what he describes as “alarmism underpinned by fraud”.
“This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.” Plimer writes in a commentary piece.
“The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.” Plimer continues.
He points out that the emails intimate that figures were manipulated to cover up the medieval warming period, and continued global cooling, in addition to artificially inflated data to emphasize warming during the 20th century.
Plimer, author of the best selling book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, has long been a vocal critic of what he describes as the hijacked environmental movement.
Plimer has stated many times that he feels vast swathes of the scientific community have been co-opted to manipulate data in return for millions in continued research funding.
The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that CRU chief P.D. Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
Another document titled (potential-funding.doc) lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists considered pressing “energy agencies” that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.
Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.
Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality backed by science.
Anthropogenic global warming theorists have long attacked skeptical scientists, claiming they are bought and paid for by oil companies, yet here we have the most influential group of climate scientists acknowledging that they are a shoe-in to receive funding from energy companies with vested interests.
Ian Plimer joins another prominent figure in the debate, Lord Christopher Monckton, who called for a full investigation and criminal prosecutions earlier this week.
Climate Expert: “Compromised” UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC, Peer-Review Process
Says “Gatekeepers” have been exposed, should be barred
A prominent German scientist who was attacked in the leaked CRU emails by UN affiliated climate scientists has stated that the group should be barred from taking part in the peer-review process and excluded from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Hans von Storch, who is referred to in very unflattering terms several times in the leaked emails, points out that the CRU scientists acted as “gatekeepers”.
“Mike Mann [climate scientist at Penn State University] was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen,” von Storch comments on his blog.
“I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to “kill” papers, exchanges of “improving” presentations without explaining.”
“Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy Climate Research’” von Storch writes.
“… scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC. […]” the professor concludes.
Yesterday we reported on the fact that the leaked emails revealed the warming alarmist scientists effectively hijacked the peer-review process as they alluded several times to efforts to shut down evidence they did not agree with, regardless of its scientific merit.
A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.
The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.
The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, from one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Phil Jones writing to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. The recent global temperatures show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but Jones ADMITS in this excerpt that he replaced the real global temperatures with Mann’s “hockey-stick” up-slope to fit their climate change viewpoints.:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
In another email from Phil Jones to climate scientist Michael Mann about ousting academics that question the link between human activities and global warming out of any peer-reviewed IPCC reports.:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
More evidence of the ousting of global warming skeptics is found in this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to global warming skeptics.:
“Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.< Even this would be difficult."
The scientists at the CRU have been waging a running battle against releasing any information under the Freedom of Information Act. A number of people had been making requests for the release of their data and correspondence – a legitimate target for an FoI, particularly given the large amounts of taxpayers’ money flowing into the CRU, the controversy of the topic and the sizeable impact on public policy that the Unit seeks to have.
These emails reveal the horrendous attitude of the CRU towards these requests behind the scenes, and their furious efforts to defy and even break the FoI Act.
“I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual
colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
“demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.”
This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.
This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.
Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request! Which is illegal. . .
In a January 2nd, 2005 Prof Phil Jones tells colleague Michael Mann in an email that he should delete CRU station data before climate skeptics can get a hold of it via Freedom of Information Act.:
don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!
Jones just admitted he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre (MM), but that’s not the only evidence of ‘cooking the books’. On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:
If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.
This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.
Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:
“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”
If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.
Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.
Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this. [Source]
Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.
Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.
In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.
In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.
Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:
Kevin Trenberth The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Phil Jones I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.
Mike MacCracken In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Tim Johns Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).
Christoph Kull Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.
Keith Briffa Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.
Michael E. Mann The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
Ben Santer I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Australia is known for sunny beaches, surfers, and blistering Outback heat.
So scientists were a bit taken aback when they spotted this giant iceberg floating near an island Down Under.
Australian Antarctic Division researchers were working on Macquarie Island when they first saw the iceberg last Thursday about about five miles off the island.
It is rare to see an iceberg floating so far north of Antarctica, researchers said. Macquarie Island is about halfway between Antarctica and Australia, some 930 miles from Tasmania.
The iceberg is about 160 feet (50 metres) high and 1,640 feet (500 metres) long.
The Earth has developed stores to absorb excessive levels of carbon dioxide, according to a study that challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.
The research, by Bristol University, suggests that despite rising emissions, the world is is still able to store a significant amount of greenhouse gases in oceans and forests.
According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.
This is despite emissions of CO2 increasing from two billion tonnes per year in 1850 to current levels of 35 billion tonnes per year.
Previously it was thought that the Earth’s capability to absorb CO2 would decrease as production booms, leading to an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
At this time of year snowstorms aren’t uncommon, they tend to be quick affairs and melt away very quickly in about a day or two. However since last year, early autumn snowstorms in the northern Midwest and northern Rockies are only sticking around and not quickly dissipating, they are only expanding further south as the winter season begins.
According to NOAA’s NOHSRC National Snow Analysis of October 13, 2009, 19.9% of the country is covered in snow, in October 13, 2008 snow cover was 12.7% and from 2003-2007 early autumn there was very little snow activity at all. What is going on here? Certainly not Global Warming
THE SUN CONNECTION: Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age
In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.
Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.
Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because “humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb”.
But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.
His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government’s plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.
The father of two claimed An Inconvenient Truth included “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush”.
The film’s distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”
But the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a “political film”.
The nine alleged errors in the film
1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
3. The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
A Government spokesman said he would not make any further comment on the case today.
Climate change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the energy costs of the average family by $142 a year in 2020 and by $583 in 2030, according to the government’s top energy forecasting agency.
The estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is in line with cost impact projections made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, and contradict claims by energy and business trade groups that consumers would pay thousands of dollars more a year under a government plan to fight global warming.
The EIA’s estimate says gasoline prices would be 23 cents a gallon higher in 2020 and 36 cents more in 2030, according to a copy of the agency’s analysis that was sent to U.S. lawmakers and obtained by Reuters.
Jeremy Symons, who oversees the National Wildlife Federation’s climate change program, said the EIA’s analysis shows that industry claims that efforts to fight global warming would significantly boost energy costs “are completely unfounded and simply scare tactics.”
(even though Obama himself said his climate plan will make energy bills skyrocket!)
The EIA reviewed the impact of the climate change bill at the request of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The agency sent its report to the panel, but has yet to make it public.
The House in June passed legislation to cut U.S. carbon emissions from utilities, manufacturers and others by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels.
The lower emission levels would be accomplished through a cap-and-trade system, where a U.S. company would be required to have a pollution permit to emit one ton of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Those companies that use cleaner energy and reduce their emissions could sell their permits to companies that pollute more.
The U.S. Senate is expected to unveil its climate change bill in September when lawmakers return from their summer recess.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Jim Efstathiou Jr., Barack Obama’s energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said if elected Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant. Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits, according to Grumet, and he will likely do this immediately upon taking office, David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club told Bloomberg.
“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. In other words, an Obama administration would impose draconian carbon emission regulations on the American people and “help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming,” according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2, that is to say they will work on a global carbon taxation structure.
A global carbon tax is not so much about limiting CO2 as it is a scheme designed to pay for world government and corporate globalization. “The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and ‘carbon footprints’ from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body,” writes Patrick Briley.
Obama has worked closely on this global taxation and world government scam under the cover of environmentalism with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Al Gore, and former communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, an advocate of the so-called Earth Charter and the author of Manifesto for Earth. Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. Rockefeller and fellow globalist Maurice Strong of Canada were instrumental in the creation of the Earth Charter. As noted above, the Sierra Club will play a decisive role in Obama’s administration. The organization takes money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is closely aligned with the United Nations Environmental Program. Strong was UNEP’s first executive director.
It is a well documented fact the environmental movement receives huge disbursements from chartered institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Turner Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Alfred W. Mellon Foundation, and others, including Bill and Melinda Gates, the Heinz family and the Carnegie Corporation. It is no mistake foundation funded environmental groups are now calling for a global carbon tax structure and an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide, as this serves the plan of their masters well.
An Obama administration will kick this scheme into warp drive and hasten the implementation of a world government of the sort members of the global elite have worked toward for many years. A phony environmental crisis, with carbon emissions playing the role as chief villain, is a perfect storm for the global elite. “We are on the verge of a global transformation,” David Rockefeller once quipped. “All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
France: Turmoil Must Not Affect Climate Change Bill
France and Germany urged smaller European Union economies not to use the world financial meltdown as an excuse to gut legislation that aims to combat global warming with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said at an EU environment ministers’ meeting that “the European Union must keep its leadership role” in climate change to nudge the United States and others into a global deal on slashing emissions.
The bill, which aims to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020, is to be adopted in December. The EU hopes it will lead to a deal that month at UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland.
“We cannot afford to delay,” German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said.
In last-minute objections, Italy said the bill would hurt its industries because Chinese and US competitors face no equivalent emission burdens. Italian officials pushed for a clause that would force the European Commission to do a new cost analysis of the climate change bill in 2009.
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia say they have already made great cuts in carbon emissions since emerging from communism.
Borloo said “there was a very strong willingness” to work toward a deal by December.” But, he added, “the financial markets crisis must not delay this. The EU must keep its leadership role or there will be no point in going to Poznan.”
The financial turmoil has triggered fears of a global recession that would make governments less eager to get major polluters such as energy generators, steel makers and cement producers to pay billions into a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.
The EU cap-and-trade program could impose up to 50 billion euros ($68.8 billion) a year in polluter fees.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said critics exaggerated the costs.
“Approving the EU bill in December will be consistent with tackling the financial crisis,” because it will promote investments in clean energy, creating jobs and easing the EU’s dependence on oil imports, he said.
The European Commission estimates the cost of the climate change bill at 0.5 percent of the bloc’s gross national product by 2020.
Essential surveillance kit for the new green police: the Energy Saving Partnership has taken out a patent on Heatseekers, thermo-imaging vehicles which, at full potential, have the capacity to identify 1,000 properties an hour, or 5,000 properties a night, that are leaking carbon.
“Once the property has been scanned, a dedicated team of energy advisers will visit householders to show them the thermal image scan of their homes,” says Inspector Knock-on-the-Door.
The intensity of the sun’s million-mile-per-hour solar wind has dropped to its lowest levels since accurate records began half a century ago, scientists say.
Measurements of the cosmic blasts of radiation, ejected from the sun’s upper atmosphere, were made with the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA).
The solar wind “inflates a protective bubble, or heliosphere, around the solar system,” which protects the inner planets against the radiation from other stars, said Dave McComas, Ulysses’ solar wind principal investigator and senior executive director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas.
“With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance the heliosphere will diminish in size and strength,” said Ed Smith, NASA’s Ulysses project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
“If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our solar system,” added Smith.
Scientists say the weakening of solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun’s magnetic field, but the causes of these changes are unknown.
The weakened solar activity can be beneficial because it slows satellites around the Earth, allowing them to remain in orbit longer.
The sun normally experiences 11-year-cycles between periods of great activity and lesser activity.
But, Smith said, the Ulysses mission’s recent results, published in Geophysical Research Letters, show that “we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”
The Ulysses mission was the first project to survey the space environment over the sun’s poles. The data the spacecraft has collected has profoundly changed the way scientists view our nearest star and its effects on the Earth.
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
So much for the media hype about Arctic ice disappearing this summer.
Less than three months ago, NBC’s Anne Thompson was warning ominously of ice loss. “But this summer, some scientists say that ice could retreat so dramatically that open water covers the North Pole, so much so that you could sail across it.”
Both are still with us – the ice and the hype. According to a September 16 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) report, such predictions were off by 1.74 million square miles.
NSIDC reported ice loss was less than in 2007. “On September 12, 2008, sea ice extent dropped to 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest point of the year, as sea has now begun its annual cycle of growth in response to autumn cooling,” according to the organization.
Two days after Thompson’s report, on July 30, ABC weatherman Sam Champion told the “Good Morning America” audience that Arctic ice loss was on a record pace. “Every summer we’re on a record pace for losing it last summer and this summer we’re at the exact same pace.”
The NSIDC assessment makes it clear that claim was also wrong, calling it “above the record minimum set on September 16, 2007.” “The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. “
Earlier in the summer, media outlets warned ominously that the ice could melt away. “Today” host Lester described the story as “surprising and, frankly, alarming news from the scientific community, a new report that says the North Pole could soon be ice-free.”
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown’s name on the plant’s chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.
In the peer reviewed book “Global Warming—Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found”, meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley utilizes nearly a half million years of data linking long term gravitational cycles of the moon explain the recent global warming, rises in carbon dioxide levels, and for 2200 global warming cycles during the past half million years.
The gravitational cycles are called the Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate (PFM), and act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere’s high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions, and thus causing long-term shifts in the location of atmospheric high pressure systems.
Research by Mr. Dilley shows a near 100 percent correlation between the PFM gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles. Global warming cycles began right on time with each PFM cycle during the past half million years, as did the current warming which began 100 years ago, and it will end right on time as the current gravitational cycle begins its cyclical decline.
Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.
Plastic Polypropylene sheets to blanket Earth from Global Warming
An eccentric team of glaciologists headed by Dr. Jason Box (Ohio State University) have put forward a new solution to fight global warming by literally blanketing the Earth using polypropylene blankets on the rapidly melting Arctic ice shelf in Greenland. These blankets will cover a total surface area of 10,000 square meters, and are designed to reflect sunlight and block out Greenland’s immense winds.
The bulk of their cargo is 31 giant rolls of uniquely designed white polypropylene blankets which are treated with UV stabilizers. The team will blanket over glacial well that carries meltwater from the surface to the base of the ice and try conserving ice up to 2 m deep.
The team will be head to a remote glacier, 90 km east of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland and the major part of their cargo comprise of 31 giant rolls of uniquely designed white polypropylene blankets. Showing immense strength, PP blankets which weighs 340 gms/sq.m. will stretch to more than 55% of their original length prior to failing. Apart from being tear resistant, the PP blankets fail at a force of 3,800N (equivalent to placing a 380-kg weight), according to one puncture test carried.
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors”
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, “I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ’climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.”
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, “in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low.”
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”
Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax The seven graphs that dispel alarmist claims about climate change
The world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.
Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.
But such figures won’t deter the agenda of control freaks like Al Gore, who last night publicly called for a carbon tax to be imposed on the use of fossil fuels at a time when even middle class families are struggling to pay the bills as a result of a crippled economy, soaring oil prices and inflation.
Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.
“That’s why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon,” writes Bolt.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”
That’s why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared “I am a sceptic”, because “we don’t really know what the actual effect on the climate is”.
And it’s why the American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The first graph, obtained from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office, shows how temperatures dropped, leveled off, and are now displaying a clear cooling trend, since their 1998 peak which was caused by the “El Nino” weather phenomenon, which is completely natural and has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
The figures mesh with anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern – China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.
A common claim of behalf of Al Gore and the Church of Environmentalism, and one vividly portrayed in the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow, is a predicted catastrophic rise in sea levels as a result of global warming.
In actual fact, figures from the Colorado Centre For Astrodynamics Research show that global sea levels, after having risen since 2000, have been falling significantly over the last 2 years.
In addition, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sea ice has grown rapidly in that same time frame and there is now more ice in the world than usually observed.
Another common cry from the alarmists is the contention that global warming is causing extreme weather events. Despite there having been far more violent and devastating weather events before the post World War 2 rise in CO2 levels, every flood, hurricane, tornado or cyclone is blamed on human-induced climate change.
The facts tell a different story. According to the American Meteorological Society, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones, hurricanes, or tornados.
Furthermore, scaremongering about droughts attributed the global warming is disproved by the fact that levels of rainfall have increased.
Hysterical phony environmentalists like to imagine that the world has never been hotter, despite the fact that the planet has violently swung between extremes of temperature for eons.
New figures from the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement debunk the IPCC’s notoriously controversial “hockey stick” graph and illustrate that the earth was a warmer place 1000 years ago. During such times, farmers in Greenland grew crops and even cultivated vineyards on a land mass that is now over 80% ice covered.
Despite evidence pouring in that the planet has naturally turned course and now embarked on a cooling trend, wild rhetoric, fearmongering, lecturing and bullying about the necessity for us to accept intrusions into our rights of mobility, privacy and behavior in the interests of saving the earth is at an all time high.
Global corporations and governments have joined forces to launch a united propaganda assault about how we must turn “green” while all the real environmental crises – deforestation, GM crops, chemtrails, genetic splicing, and cancer-causing cellphone tower radiation – are completely ignored.
Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming
The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position.
Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.
“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.
Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases – “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” – which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.
“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.
Evans highlights data collected from satellites positioned around the globe that indicates temperatures have dropped about 0.6C in the past year – back to 1980 levels. Such figures are complimented by anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern – China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.
Evans also cites historical climate change and the fact that CO2 does not cause, but in fact lags behind temperature increase by as much as 800 years.
“The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect,” he writes.
“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion,” writes Evans.
Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.
“The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere,” states the preamble to the paper.
The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.
According to the paper, “Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.”
The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The paper concludes, “CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”
A new paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia is warning of upcoming global cooling due to lessened solar activity. The study, written by three Australian researchers, has identified what is known as a “spin-orbit coupling” affecting the rotation rate of the sun. That rotation, in turn, is linked to the intensity of the solar cycle and climate changes here on Earth.
The study’s lead author, Ian Wilson, explains further, “[The paper] supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years.”
According to Wilson, the result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, “On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.”
A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output.
Earlier this year, astronomers from around the world noted solar activity was suspiciously low; some began predicting global cooling at that time. Since then, activity has remained far below average, with it now being over two months since a single sunspot has appeared on the surface of the sun.
In May, a team of German climatologists published research stating that, due to “natural effects”, global warming would halt for up to 15 years.
The headlines last week brought us terrifying news: The North Pole will be ice-free this summer “for the first time in human history,” wrote Steve Connor in The Independent. Or so the experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado predict. This sounds very frightening, so let’s look at the facts about polar sea ice.
As usual, there are a couple of huge problems with the reports.
Firstly, the story is neither alarming nor unique.
In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:
“There’s nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There’s been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change.”
During the summer of 2000 there was “a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole”. Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: “The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning.”
Secondly, the likelihood of the North Pole being ice free this summer is actually quite slim. There are only a few weeks left where the sun is high enough to melt ice at the North Pole. The sun is less than 23 degrees above the horizon, and by mid-August will be less than 15 degrees above it. Temperatures in Greenland have been cold this summer, and winds are not favorable for a repeat. Currently, there is about one million km2 more ice than there was on this date last summer.
So what is really going on at the poles?
The Tipping Point that wouldn’t tip
Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record for the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant. As seen below, there has been no net gain or loss of polar sea ice since records began.
Last week, Dr James Hansen from NASA spoke about how CO2 is affecting the polar ice caps.
“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes… The Arctic is the first tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would,” he said.
Well, not exactly.
Hansen is only telling half the story. In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases, in which he explained how CO2 causes “polar amplification.” He predicted nearly symmetrical warming at both poles. As shown in Figure 2-2 from the article, Hansen calculated that both the Arctic and Antarctic would warm by 5-6 degrees Centigrade. His predictions were largely incorrect, as most of Antarctica has cooled and sea ice has rapidly expanded. The evidence does not support the theory.
Dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots, but now they are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future.
Although periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, this current period has gone on much longer than usual and scientists are starting to worry—at least a little bit. Recently 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered to discuss the issue at an international solar conference at Montana State University. Today’s sun is as inactive as it was two years ago, and solar physicists don’t have a clue as to why.
“It continues to be dead,” said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists.
Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But so far nothing is happening.
“It’s a dead face,” Tsuneta said of the sun’s appearance.
Tsuneta said solar physicists aren’t weather forecasters and they can’t predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.
Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.
“This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930,” Dr Chapman noted in The Australian recently.
If the world does face another mini Ice Age, it could come without warning. Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling, which occurred about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? There’s no way to tell, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming.
The Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state. The unexplained phenomenon has been the topic of much intense scientific debate, as well as other millennial scale events.
Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.
Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council has also noted that solar activity has entered into an unusually inactive phase, but what that means—if anything—is still anyone’s guess. Another solar scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, however, is certain that it’s an indication of a coming cooling period.
Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change “a drop in the bucket” compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.
Sorokhtin’s advice: “Stock up on fur coats”…just in case.
Australian’s cost of living up under carbon trading
Al Gore believes the road to solving the climate crisis winds through American pop culture, from “American Idol” and “The Biggest Loser” on through “The Daily Show” and “The 700 Club.” The former vice president and the beneficiary of his Nobel Prize, the Palo Alto-based Alliance for Climate Protection, want Washington politicians to act faster to solve the climate crisis. And they think the way to do this is to create a popular movement that appeals to Americans through the pop culture that unites them, rather than political issues that divide them.
Their three-year public advocacy campaign – estimated to cost $300 million – called “We” premieres Wednesday night with a 30-second ad on “Idol,” the nation’s top-rated TV show, where 30 seconds of advertising time costs roughly $700,000. The “We” effort aims to create an army of 10 million activists, twice the size of the group that drove the civil rights movement.
The first ad tells viewers that Americans didn’t wait to storm the beaches of Normandy in World War II, or to overcome segregation or to put the first man on the moon. “We need to act now” to solve the climate crisis, the ad says, and refers viewers to http://www.wecansolveit.org.
Later TV ads will present “unlikely pairs,” who disagree on many issues but appear together to help thwart climate change. The pairs lined up so far include conservative televangelist Pat Robertson and the Rev. Al Sharpton; John Kerry-supporting country rockers the Dixie Chicks and George W. Bush-endorsing country singer Toby Keith; and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
They’ve even enlisting the nation’s 2.7 million Girl Scouts, and their 900,000 parents and adult leaders, to spread the word through their social networks.
There is a great deal of scientific data and anecdotal evidence indicating that man made carbon emissions causing global warming is simply not factual. However, that doesn’t stop the establishment from hyping this phony threat because they wouldn’t be able to achieve their great dream of a global carbon tax without creating this phony problem to blame on man made carbon emissions. It is simply an excuse for them to extract more wealth from the people to fund their system of global government.
Here in the United States, Senator Joe Lieberman has introduced S 2191 which will establish a carbon credit system here in the United States. The bill would also give the Environmental Protection Agency draconian powers to enforce it. Businesses would actually be forced to report their carbon footprint to the EPA much like businesses and people are forced through the barrel of a gun to report their income to the IRS. Similar programs are being proposed in other regions of the world. There is no question that the elites are attempting to implement this program on a global scale.
Evidence of this can be seen with staged events like Earth Hour and last year’s July 7th, 2007 Live Earth Concert. Through Gore and assorted staged events, they are attempting to propagandize people to convince them that man made carbon emissions are causing global warming and global warming is destroying the planet. This is the furthest thing from the truth, but if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. That is exactly what the establishment is trying to do and this lie will be used to establish large monopolies through the carbon tax and put smaller businesses out of business.
On top of this, Gore is pumping millions into a campaign to recruit an army of brainwashed cult followers that will promote this agenda. Instead of focusing in on real environmental problems like the spraying of pesticides over California, the military use of depleted uranium in the Middle East, the disappearance of bees around the world, the merger of human and animal DNA and other horrors taking place, Gore would prefer to focus in on a fake problem. The reason for this is because Gore is poised to profit off of this whole scam and he’s an establishment hack that supports the objective of enslaving humanity.
What we are seeing is an attempt by the establishment to form a one world religion based off of earth worship which will be supplemented by their carbon enslavement tax. Gore is playing the role of a cult leader who is attempting to spread a new age religion of earth worship to the masses through one of the biggest scams in the history of mankind. Gore and the sicko eugenics freaks in the World Wildlife Fund who are promoting this earth worship agenda are disturbing individuals who should be held liable for this giant hoax.
Al Gore: Climate Change Skeptics are Flat Earthers
If you have problems with the United Nations’ scheme to frighten the rabbits and herd them into global warming ghettos, take heed in the words of Mr. Green, Al Gore.
On Sunday, Leslie Stahl will interview Gore on 60 Minutes, an interview that coincides with Gore’s “major advertising campaign to raise awareness of global warming,” according to David Edwards and Muriel Kane of Raw Story. In a teaser for the show (see video here), Gore compares those of us who have big problems with dismantling civilization — in other words, forcing millions to accept a New Stone Age lifestyle — with “the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”
In fact, the enviro-crusaders, funded over the years by the Rockefeller foundation, are the flat-earthers, unable to accept alternative theories to their junk science. Instead of debating the opposition, followers of the climate change orthodoxy continue to slander and attempt to minimize them.
Somebody needs to question the “solutions” proffered to mend climate change proposed by the enviro-fascists. One such “solution” entails “geoengineering,” that is the deliberate change of the climate with sulfate aerosols, the same stuff that comes out volcanoes (see Can We Offset Global Warming By Geoengineering The Climate With Aerosols?). Such a harebrained scheme, even if possible, would increase “global dimming” and reduce the amount of light and solar energy that reaches the planet. Never mind the resultant acid rain and massive impact of agriculture. Starvation is an effective way to scale back carbon emissions, as there will be a lot less people breathing.
Another crazy idea is ocean iron fertilization, also known as the “Geritol solution,” and involves seeding the oceans with iron to increase phytoplankton populations. The thought here is that the iron will encourage phytoplankton growth and the phytoplankton will suck up the CO2 as part of photosynthesis. Nobody knows if this will work but why let that stop the eco-fascists from polluting the oceans with heavy metals?
“Other wacky ideas under consideration include artificial trees, giant space mirrors, painting city buildings / roads white, etc., etc.,” notes Global Warming Hoax. “Some of these ideas are scarier than others as some are easy to undo. However the earth warms over time and once we spend a trillion dollars on a space mirror and cool the earth 5°C it will take time to rewarm the oceans, it will also be so embarrassing that it could take decades to convince politicians to scrap such an expensive system. Painting all buildings and roads white would take far longer to undo. Ocean fertilization has unknown consequences and could trigger a chain of events that could go on for decades.”
A new bill aimed at combating global warming currently being considered by the Senate would, if passed, inflict a new great depression on America by reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.
The shocking consequences of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, known as America’s Climate Security Act, were revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill this week, which forecast a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050.
In comparison, despite the fact that America is teetering on the brink of a recession or is already in one according to many experts, GDP still increased by 0.7 percent in 2007. Imagine what effect a -6.9 percent swing would have – an economy ten times worse than it is now.
As JunkScience.com’s Steven Milloy highlights, “For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.”
And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.
The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.
Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.
Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.
Add to this the fact that, as climate cult alarmists are loathe to admit, ice core samples clearly show that carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years, and the whole issue starts to look even more harebrained.
Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below).
On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why “global warming” suddenly became “climate change” when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.
Once again, the enviro-mentalists are proposing measures that would make life hell for the poor and middle classes and completely ransack the economy while creating global financial instability that would make today’s problems look like a walk in the park – all based on the justification of saving the planet from a potential 0.10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature that isn’t even guaranteed because the science behind it is complete bunk.
In another example of outright frothing lunacy, NASA climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen recently issued a report that called for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030.
“An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects,” states the report.
As the Business and Media Institute points out, coal fired plants account for no less than 50 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. To eliminate coal use would completely cripple the global economy and lead soaring energy costs to at least a doubling of current levels.
As we reported earlier this month, a recent Carnegie Institution report calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to combat global warming, despite the fact that such a move would return man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions.
The proposal was afforded serious gravitas by news outlets like the Washington Post absent even a passing mention of what its disastrous consequences would be for humanity.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after 
Leaked documents prove alarmists planned to seek funding from “energy agencies”
A prominent German scientist who was attacked in the leaked CRU emails by UN affiliated climate scientists has stated that the group should be barred from taking part in the peer-review process and excluded from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Earth has developed stores to absorb excessive levels of carbon dioxide, according to a study that challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.
Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
Climate change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the energy costs of the average family by $142 a year in 2020 and by $583 in 2030, according to the government’s top energy forecasting agency.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Jim Efstathiou Jr., Barack Obama’s energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said if elected Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant. Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits, according to Grumet, and he will likely do this immediately upon taking office, David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club told Bloomberg.
Total Solar Irradiance over time in watts per square Variation in the TSI during the period 1978 to 2008 (heavy line) and its bicentennial component (dash line), revealed by us. Distinct short-term upward excursions are caused by the passage of faculae on the solar disk, and downward excursions by the passage of sunspot groups.
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”
A new paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia is warning of upcoming global cooling due to lessened solar activity. The study, written by three Australian researchers, has identified what is known as a “spin-orbit coupling” affecting the rotation rate of the sun. That rotation, in turn, is linked to the intensity of the solar cycle and climate changes here on Earth.
Dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots, but now they are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future.
On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why “global warming” suddenly became “climate change” when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.
noworldsystem.com 