Articles 04/08

 

The Letters Editor,

Western Mail.

 3rd May 2008.

 Dear Editor,

 Would Gordon James of Friends of the Earth reveal why he uses outdated information on climate change? Average temperature is not rising. Indeed, satellites, weather balloons and data from UK Hadley Climate Research Unit all show sharp falls.

 

FoE’s website baldly claims, with no scientific proof at all, that: “Climate change or global warming is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide (C02) and other polluting gases in our atmosphere”. That was a theory not a fact and is now firmly disproved.

 

CO2  is not a pollutant Mr James; it is a trace gas vital to all life and at historically low levels. For years FoE and others have warned that 1998 was the hottest year on record and was proof of man-made warming. The last ten years have seen no warming so they tell us that is natural variation. One year warmer, our fault; ten years cooler, nature!

 

Not one of the IPCC climate models on which the man-made warming myth is based suggested ten years of cooling; they all said rising CO2 levels would lead to higher temperatures. Nature has proved them wrong so yet another model is created which says we are still warming but it is masked by….errm…cooling. What dangerous tripe.

 

Friends of the Earth have received huge funding from the leftist, high-tax-and-control EU.  The European Commission handed FoE Europe £562,000 in 2006.

Conservative MEP Roger Helmer says such funding is “anti-democratic”. “In funding such NGOs’ the commission can be seen to be responding to apparently independent, voluntary groups while, in fact, it is actually paying to have itself lobbied to take actions which, in the main, it would wish to take anyway.”

 

Mr James may not be aware that there is a jackpot of $150,000 available to anyone who has solid proof that man-made CO2 is warming us to dangerous levels.

 

When will Mr James be collecting his prize?

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Alwyn Davies

 

 

————————————————————————————————————————————-

 

 

 

 

 

How climate change could affect Tyneside     Apr 30 2008 by Amy Hunt, Evening Chronicle          It is like a vision from a Hollywood film. But as Environment Reporter Amy Hunt finds out, the vision of the dramatic effects of climate change is very real.          FIRES and floods will hit the North East and snow will become a thing of the past as climate change tightens its grip.          But balmy temperatures enticing tourists and firms developing technology to protect our region will bring jobs and cash.          This is the double-edged scenario predicted by a study looking at how the effects of climate change will hit the region.          The North East Climate Change Adaptation Study, published today, is the most detailed and area-specific study of its kind produced anywhere in the world.          Using the latest technology, it predicts what the weather will be like between now and 2050 and what we must do now to prepare ourselves and make our region climate-proof.          The study found:          :: Annual average daily temperatures will increase by 2°C and extreme hot temperatures will increase by around 3°C;          :: Heatwaves will become more commonplace, while the number of frost days will fall;          :: Annual rainfall will fall by up to 10% but winters will be 21% wetter. Summer rainfall will fall by 37%;          :: There will be up to 20% more episodes of very heavy rainfall;          :: Winter snowfall will be much less common, with levels falling by between 45% and 83%;          :: Sea levels will increase by about 0.3m, while sea surge levels will rise by between 0.3m and 0.35m          The report says climatic changes will cause problems for the region, including:          :: More flooding from rivers, the sea and drainage systems;          :: Health problems caused by warmer summers and increased pressure on emergency services;          :: More wild fires and parkland fires;          :: An increase in infectious diseases in humans and livestock and an increase in pests;          :: Damage to buildings;          :: Erosion of the coastline.          But there will be benefits, too, including opportunities for businesses to cash in on ways of helping the region to adapt and warmer winters leading to fewer winter deaths.          Rising temperatures are predicted to make the North East a target for tourists as other destinations worldwide become uncomfortably hot.          And economic experts say the region is set to lead the way in developing renewable energy, bio-fuels, low-carbon power generation and waste and energy management.          Experts agree that human activity is causing global warming and that past and present emissions of gases such as CO2, which cause the climate to heat up, have shown what the effects will be over the next 30 to 40 years.          The authors of the study want it to inspire companies, councils and organisations in the North East and beyond to take action to protect communities, the economy, infrastructures like buildings, roads and sewers and natural resources in the face of the threat of global warming.          Wyn Jones, chairman of Sustaine, the regional champion body for sustainable development, said: “Climate change affects us all and we need to act now. This study provides the North East with a clear picture of the changes that the region is likely to face in the years ahead, the areas that will be most affected and what we need to do now to prepare and adapt for the future.          “It highlights the challenges we face and the economic opportunities that are presented by our changing climate.          “By acting now, the region, and the rest of the country can avoid or at least reduce aspects of climate change that have a detrimental effect on our society and in turn take advantage of the economic opportunities that accompany it.”          The North East Climate Change Adaptation Study is available online at www.adaptNE.

===================================

Dominic Lawson: The staggering cost of renewable

energy

————————————————

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The scariest photo

Courtesy of the Doug Ross blog, we come to Phil Chapman’s piece in The Australian where he publishes the “scariest photo I have seen on the internet”.

 

Dominic Lawson: The staggering cost of renewable

energy

————————————————

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The scariest photo

Courtesy of the Doug Ross blog, we come to Phil Chapman’s piece in The Australian where he publishes the “scariest photo I have seen on the internet”.

This is from spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture, writes Chapman, is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

This is from spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture, writes Chapman, is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Phil Chapman, in case you didn’t know, is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Warming (if you will forgive that word) to his theme, he tells us that, “disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.”

This we have recorded on this blog (for instance, here and here and Chapman tells us that all four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that the global temperature cooled by about 0.7C in 2007.

This, he reminds us, “is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.” He adds:

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

We could also add that Arctic ice cover this winter is over a million square kilometres more than it was last year, with Greenland ice between Canada and southwest Greenland having reached its greatest extent in 15 years. Yet still we get ill-informed propaganda puffs from the WWF in the likes of today’s Daily Telegraph telling us that dwindling Arctic sea ice may have reached a “tipping point” – relying on data from September 2005.

Rightly, Chapman cautions that it is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year. He would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. But this is where SOHO comes in. We are thus informed:

The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No 24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn’t happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon’s Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No 24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Echoing precisely the point we made in our previous piece, Chapman says there is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do.

There are many more people now, he writes, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

In fact, Chapman posits a remote but much more serious scenario of “severe glaciation” which can occur quickly – as fast as 20 years. “The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years,” he reassures us. “On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.”

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Thus, he concludes, “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” Inevitably, Chapman warns, “It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.”

With a fine sense of history, he then chooses his closing words from Oliver Cromwell, with a message for warmists: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

The admission of error, however, is not within the gift of the warmists. If Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on them, then we have a way to go before the full horror of their obsession becomes apparent – but not very long.

COMMENT THREAD

————————————————————–

THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING MYTH – By Rodney Atkinson
 
500 scientists, engineers, policy makers and business leaders say GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A GLOBAL CRISIS.
 
500 signatories to the Manhattan Declaration including leading climate scientists have declared that man made global warming is a myth. They say that “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions from industrial activity have in the past, are now or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change”. Indeed in the historical record the rise in CO2 has always followed periods of warming (as the effects of disturbances on the Sun and the Earth created more CO2) not preceded them as the man made global warming  (MMGW) theorists maintain!
 
MASSIVE COSTS OF CLIMATE TAXES AND LEVIES
 
The Manhattan Declaration calls for an end to the enormous taxation burdens put on individulas and industry by “climate change” levies etc. Those levies in the UK have raised energy costs by at least 6% which together with other Government disasters like fuel taxation and the failure of the EU gas market) has contributed to a crisis of energy poverty among millions of British households (when 10% or more of income is spent on fuel bills). A consultant’s report comissioned by the UK government, estimates the cost of attempting to meet the EU target for 20% of energy consumption to be met by renewables by 2020. “The Central Case estimates the cost …….to be EUR18.8bn, with the lifetime cost of the policy being EUR259bn.” This is a scandalous waste of human resources – and all based on the myths of MMGW.
 
SOME INCONVENIENT FACTS
 
The International Climate Science Coalition which produced the Declaration says it is devoted to “fostering rational evidence based open discussion on climate issues” which will certainly make a change! The myths pedalled by politicians and those whom they shower with our money, have had virtually free rein in the media. The facts are somewhat different.
 
The world has not warmed at all over the last 10 years and over the last 8 years has actually cooled a little. (Even the Head of the scaremongering IPCC has admitted this). The past winter was the coldest for nearly 30 years and the Arctic has in fact just shown signs of increasing in area. (And polar bears have rarely been more numerous!) At the other pole the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica was in January 2008 almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year (summer in the Antarctic). It’s farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records. As data in the University of Illinois’ web publication Cryosphere Today shows,  there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.
 
A VICIOUS RELIGION

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been notorious for exaggerating its global warming claims and have even included among its “experts” (without their permission) those who have in fact rejected its theory. MMGW theory has taken on the characteristics of a fanatical religion where sceptics are called heretics or “deniers” (equating them with “Holocaust deniers”!). Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising doubts about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. “I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.” Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.”

Nigel Calder, the British former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Professor Paul Reiter of the Paris Institut Pasteur wrote to a British newspaper: “I am reminded of Trophim Lysenko, who used pseudo-science and myth-making to establish “scientific proof” of Marxist genetics. Lysenko dominated Soviet science for more than two decades by propaganda and ruthless liquidation of his opponents. When he was finally discredited, the Soviet Nobel Laureate Nocolai Semyonov wrote:- “There is nothing more dangerous than blind passion in science. Given support from someone in power, it can lead to suppression of true science, and….to inflict great injury on the country”.

 

 

 
So much of the research into man made global warming (MMGW) has been funded with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money (ie spent by those least capable – Governments!) Little or no Government funding has been made available to those who have questioned MMGW and most of those claiming to speak for the world’s scientists tend to be the very few scientists and managers who run academic associations rather than those engaged in real climate science. There has been massive politicisation of science by MMGW fanatics in governments. Those bent on acquiring greater power for supranational organisations have sought to create public concern – regardless of the truth. Some have let their political and ideological intentions out of the bag!
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister and “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” said Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of the UN’s IPCC. One thing is certain the MMGW theorists and their political sidekicks have lost all credibility now. If they had been more rational and circumspect they might have been believed in future but we all know what happened to the boy who kept crying “wolf”. The moral and intellectual cost to the scientific community has been tragic to behold.
WORTHLESS “MODELS”

On 23rd April 2006 45 mostly climate scientists (**) wrote to The Sunday Telegraph contradicting the assertions of the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow (himself NOT a climatologist but a cosmologist and astrophysicist). They explicitly contradicted Rees’s statement that the evidence for human-caused global warming “is now compelling”. On the contrary the 45 scientists say, “global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise'”. They also noted that “observational evidence does not support today‘s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future”. The names of those scientists is set out at the end of this article.
There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional control over free nations. The quality of politicians in the rich western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. Climate change seemed to them a gift from heaven – literally! We must not allow the modern rquivalent of medieval religious hegemony to run our democracies as they previously terrified the ignorant and uneducated into submission. The new enslavement may be reliant on the new Gods of politically perverted science but the effect of it’s myth making and global costs are no less terrifying than the Inquisition.
Rodney Atkinson
24th April 2008
Some signatories of scientists questioning MMGW  
(Filed: 23/04/2006)

(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

(Dr) Bob Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

(Dr) R Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

(Dr) R M Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

(Dr) R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

(Dr) Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

(Dr) Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

(Dr) L Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

(Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

(Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia‘s National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

(Dr) David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario

Mr Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

(Dr) Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario

(Dr) Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

(Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists

(Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

(Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.

(Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

(Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota

(Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

(Dr) Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working Group II, chapter 8 (human health)

(Dr) Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

(Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment

(Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change

(Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

(Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

(Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

(Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001,‘ Wellington, N.Z.

(Dr) Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

(Dr) Jack Barrett, retired chemist and spectrocopist, Imperial College London, U.K.

(Dr) William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

(Dr) S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

(Dr) Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Mr Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

(Dr) Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor in Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

(Dr) Wibjörn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

(Dr) Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant

(Dr) Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon

(Dr) Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, UK; international economist

(Dr) Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, UK

Hundreds Sign Climate Realist Declaration – “Global Warming’ is not a Global Crisis”

 

Stop the CO2 scare, before it’s too late

 

 Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

____________________________________________________________________________________

Is Wikipedia in the hands of zealots

Wikipedia’s Zealots –

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I—no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia—or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen—beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

See another example here of a Wikipedia embellished story on the west Antarctic icesheet. It has forecasts sea level impacts far greater than Gore and Hansen and way out of line with the IPCC.

Exposing the Climate Change Agenda

 

Geologist: Sun’s shift could mean global chill

 

The slick trick behind global frauding

 

On Global Warming and Horrible People

 

British policy advisor says Gore is in ‘panic’ mode

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: