posted July 29, 2011 02:20 PM            

" ... the theory of the Communist may be summed up
in the single sentence:
Abolition of private property."

30 Apr 10 - " Global warming's story begins with a diabolical ******* named Karl Marx."

Thus begins this new must-read book by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman, who brilliantly exposes
the global warming scam.

Sussman first gives us a brief synopsis of the history of communism-socialism in order to put the environmental agenda in context.

"Global warming is a scam perpetrated by an elite sect
of Marx-lovers who believe they can do communism/
socialism more effectively than their predecessors, and
now, with the ascendance of Barack Obama as president,
the scam has reached hyperspeed," says Sussman

"In chapter two of his Manifesto, Marx boldly states the goal of his envisioned new world order. " ... the theory of the Communist may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." "... for us man himself is mutually of no value."

"These egalitarians are willing to utilize phony science as terror tactics, in an attempt to force you to believe that your lifestyle is responsible for negatively altering the earth's atmosphere," Sussman continues.

"It's all a lie.

"The earth is not warming and climate always changes—and they know it.

"But they are assuming there are enough ignorant fools they can hornswoggle into believing that any climatic alterations, including extreme weather events like hurricanes or floods, are being caused by mankind.

"Global warming is the grandest of all tyrannical schemes."

"Marx's men at Stanford"

Sussman then goes on to describe "Marx's men at Stanford." He speaks of Paul Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University who has gained a reputation among environmentalists as a prophetic guru.

"Ehrlich's conviction has always boiled down to people being the problem—there are just too damned many of them—and his final solution has always been clear: "Population control is the only answer."

"Ehrlich's wild allegations included equating the earth's surplus of people with a cancer that needs to be eradicated: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. . . . We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions." "We must have population control ... by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."

So much for a kinder, gentler nation.

All this, and we're only up to page 7.

If you are worried about the direction our country is headed, if the words above make you shudder, you will definitely want to read this book.

posted July 29, 2011 02:23 PM            

Burt Rutan's comprehensive new report on
Global Warming science fraud

By Burt Rutan - March 2010

Who is Burt Rutan?

Burt Rutan was Time magazine's "100 most influential people in the world, 2004"
and Inc. Magazine's "Entrepreneur of the Year." Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

Rutan has received hundreds of awards including: Presidential Citizen's Medal, Two Collier Trophies, Academy of Achievement Golden Plate and the Charles Lindbergh Award. He has developed 44 new aircraft types since 1972 including; Voyager (1986 RTW-non refueled), SpaceShipOne (2004 Funded by Paul Allen, winner of X-prize) and the first commercial spaceship - SpaceShipTwo (2009 Funded by Sir Richard Branson).

This is a man worth listening to.

About this report

"This report presents climate data to Inform, rather than to Scare," says Rutan.
"It's not a climate science reference, but a unique perspective - an engineering critique of the alarmist climate scientists and their process of data gathering, processing and presentation. No author approvals are required for distribution. Please feel free to
copy or distribute any part of this report."

Looking back 600 million years
(Sample page from report)

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was likely 18 times today’s
concentration during the Cambrian period when life’s diversity
was at its greatest expansion.

It was four times the current level when the dinosaurs went
extinct. The only extended time that CO2 was similar to today
was an extended period 300 million years ago.

In the big picture we are now in a low CO2 period. The 20th
century increase shows as an insignificant dot at this scale.

Do we risk runaway greenhouse warming if our CO2
concentration gets too high? It has never significantly driven
temperature before.

Venus may have runaway greenhouse warming, but its CO2, at
96.5% is 2,500 times the level of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.

And Mars is cold, despite having 95% CO2.

A few excerpts

"Note that NONE of the dozens of computer models predicted the last decade
of cooling. Excuses and dial-tweaks were made after the fact.

"During the last 450,000 years the four previous interglacial warm periods were warmer than the current one.

"Looking back millions of years, we are in a comparative cold period and the 20th century warming is insignificant.

"The US temperature trend is so slight that, were the global average temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it.

posted July 29, 2011 02:24 PM            

By Kirk Myers

15 Mar 10 - (Excerpts) - Several researchers are claiming in a study published last week that rising greenhouse emissions will raise global temperatures by 6.7 to 8.0 degrees by 2100, even if the earth's climate enters another “Little Ice Age.”

Huh?

Where does such nonsense come from?

According to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd (e.g., government-paid shills like NASA’s James Hansen, “Hockey Stick” Penn State Professor Michael Mann, and disgraced former Climate Research Unit Director Phil Jones), CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are being trapped in the atmosphere where they act as a temperature-forcing agent. As CO2 levels continue to rise, the planet will eventually face runaway global warming.

No hard, empirical evidence

However, there is a problem with their “catastrophic climate change” theory: hard, empirical evidence does not exist to support it.

According to Dr. Pierre Latour, a chemical and process-control engineer, a tripling of CO2 from current levels (approximately 385 parts per million) would not produce any additional warming. In an editorial published in the February issue of Hyrdocarbon Processing magazine, he writes:

"CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in earth's atmosphere. The first 50 ppm [parts per million] of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, [and] each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm, there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1,000 ppm, with no additional discernable absorption-emission [warming]."

Some climate scientists claim that water vapor amplifies the radiative “forcing” of man-made CO2 – creating a sort of magic “multiplier effect” that raises surface temperatures. But where’s the proof? There isn't any. . . In fact, as recent studies have shown, clouds may act to suppress any warming triggered by greenhouse gases.

Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements have failed to find a pattern of upper trophospheric heating predicted by the models. Global temperatures flat-lined in the late 1990s and have been declining slightly since 2002. The IPCC models predicted a steady upward trend, not a decline. Ergo, their predictions are faulty.

Creative computer models

The belief in runaway CO2-induced warming is based solely on computer models that have been manipulated over time to produce a desired political conclusion: ergo, a world being warmed by mankind. It is a theory unsupported by solid scientific evidence.

As Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, writes:

“All the global General Circulation Models (GCMs) which predict future global temperature change for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They do not realistically handle the changes in upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness . . . They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.”

Gray also observes that models “failed to account for the weak global cooling over the last decade, ” so how can they be expected to make long-range predictions?

“Any experienced meteorologist or climate scientist who would actually believes a long range climate model should really have their head examined. They are living in a dream world,” he concludes.

Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, challenges the rubber-stamped theory that blames CO2 emissions for global warming while disregarding the sun’s influence on climate.

The sun probably the only true external climate driver

“The sun, of course, with its light energy output is probably the only true external driver of the earth’s climate system . . . There is no other force on earth that would supply that amount of energy for the air to move around, for the ocean currents to move around and for the trees to grow,” Soon explains.

The theory that increasing CO2 levels lead to warming is false, according to Soon. In fact, the process is exactly reversed: Increases in CO2 follow, rather than precede, warmer climate periods, he says.

“Published papers [analyzing ice core data] clearly, clearly show that it is always temperature that rises first by at least several hundred years . . . then the CO2 curve response follows. It is a very clear scientific consensus on this issue,” Soon says.

Political science, not actual science

Nevertheless, the AGW camp, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claims the “science is settled” and continues to finger human-generated CO2 as the principal cause of global warming. There seems to be more “political science” at work than actual science, Soon laments.

“Those [AGW] views are promoted by political bodies . . . and there appears to be a corrupted process . . . . This is all becoming a war of words instead of a war of evidence and science,” Soon says.

Rigging the findings

Dr. David Legates, associate professor of Climatology in the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, accuses IPPC policymakers of rigging the findings in “working group” science documents so they match the conclusions in the IPPC Assessment Report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

“In many cases, they [policymakers] go back to scientists and say, ‘Can you change this science document to match our summary? We want to beef this up. We want to make it look worse.’ That’s not the way science is done,” Legates says.

Billions of dollars are pouring into the study of man-made global warming. It is the Mother Lode that keeps the grant money flowing. If the theory were given the proper burial it deserves, research dollars would dry up, forcing scientists to hunt for other sources of funding. As a result, the theory is defended with wolf-pack determination by scientists who stand to lose the most, including their reputations.

A favorite canard of global warming alarmists-turned-conspiracy theorists is the claim that AGW skeptics and their climate blogs are funded by corporate interests, especially “big oil.” But the reverse is actually true. The truly big money is pouring into climate-change research.

3,500 times the amount contributed to skeptics

The U.S. government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on climate research and technology, 3,500 times the amount contributed to skeptics, according to Joanne Nova, a science writer who runs the Web site JoNova.

By comparison, the skeptics’ camp is largely self-funded. Greepeace, after conducting its own investigation, discovered that Exxon funneled $23 million to so-called skeptics over a 10-year period, a pittance compared to the riches heaped on taxpayer-funded scientists by governments and foundations.

CO2: a plant nutrient

CO2 is not the global menace described by climate-change scaremongers. It is an essential planetary nutrient.

“The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous,” writes physical science and mathematics professor Richard F. Yada physical . “The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.”

Rising CO2 levels will not lead to runaway global warming and may very well provide a nutritional boost to agriculture, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

The CO2 fantasy is driven by both money and a profound hatred of “polluters,” those nasty industrial capitalists on a mission to destroy Mother Earth through their relentless efforts to raise mankind’s standard of living. It is a falsehood that deserves a place alongside a belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

posted July 29, 2011 02:27 PM            

of man-made global warming

"Hundreds of research papers in high-reputation scientific journals dealing with the classic greenhouse theory were a waste of time, effort and money."

By Kirk Myers

9 Feb 10 - (Excerpts) - A former NASA contractor whose theory demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is constant and self-regulating and that increases in human CO2 emissions are not the source of global warming is fighting an uphill battle to publish his controversial work.

Prominent atmospheric physicist demolishes prevailing doctrine

Developed by prominent atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, the new theory is enormously significant because it demolishes the prevailing doctrine of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), which blames humans for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and triggering runaway global warming that could eventually lead to catastrophic climate change.

All conventional greenhouse concepts are based on the idea that rising greenhouse gases cause an increase in atmospheric absorption, which in turn leads to atmospheric warming and higher surface temperatures. But Miskolczi’s research upends that conventional theory.

After studying hundreds of atmospheric profiles (extracted from the TIGR2 global radiosonde database from the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique in Paris, Dr. Miskolczi, a former contract researcher for NASA’s Langley Research Center, discovered a self-regulating mechanism, or “constant,” that keeps Earth’s greenhouse gases in equilibrium.

In simple terms, Miskolczi has discovered a new law of physics that sets an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. According to this law, the surplus temperature from greenhouse gases is constant and cannot be increased. Why? Because the earth’s greenhouse blanket functions dynamically to maintain equilibrium in response to changes in greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane and ozone.

"Anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie"

“I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect. The anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie, unless somebody proves otherwise,” Miskolczi says.

The chief cause of global warming, according to Miskolczi, is not CO2, but changes in albedo (reflected sunlight) and in the solar constant (amount and rate of solar energy reaching Earth).

Research ignored by NASA

Miskolczi’s research was greeted less than cordially by his bosses. After submitting his results to Applied Optics, a respected peer-review journal, he was told to withdraw the paper by his employer, Analytical Services and Materials, a NASA contractor. When he protested (the paper was midway through the review process), his boss withdrew it. He later confronted his NASA supervisor, Dr. Martin Mlynczak, and was simply ignored, he says.

When contacted by phone, Mlynczak refused to discuss the issue. “We’re not going to comment on that,” he said.

"NASA is not an honest research environment.”

After his paper was withdrawn, Miskolczi’s relationship with his supervisors deteriorated. “Since all of them are experts in the field, I presume they fully understood the implications of the findings,” he says. “They never challenged my results or shared my research with other greenhouse experts. They were just keeping silent. NASA is not an honest research environment.”

Miskolczi submitted an official request to NASA seeking release of his paper for publication, but months went by and he heard nothing, he says. "They just sat on it."

In October 2006, Miskolczi ended his relationship with the agency. In his resignation letter, he criticized NASA for thwarting the publication of research that has "far-reaching consequences in the general atmospheric radiative transfer.”

“My idea of freedom of science cannot coexist with the way NASA handles new climate-change-related scientific results,” he wrote.

Miskolczi’s research paper was eventually published in the January-March 2007 issue of IDOJARAS, the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, after being rejected by leading journals such as Journal of Geophysical Research, Science, Tellus-B and Astrophysical Journal.

Other scientists silenced

The release of Miskolczi’s paper seems to have unnerved some members of the global-warmist community, including a few government officials. Hungarian physicist Dr. Miklos Zagoni was ousted last year as senior climate advisor of the Budapest Ministry of Environment and Water after publicly supporting Miskolczi's research.

Explains Zagoni: “First the government tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. I lost my job because of my scientific convictions. I wanted to talk publicly about Dr. Miskolczi’s results, but in the pre-Copenhagen days it was not tolerated by my government superiors.”

Staunch advocate of the AGW theory shifts his views

Zagoni had been a staunch advocate of the AGW theory. But his views shifted after studying Miskolczi’s research.

“NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Miskolczi’s results. On the contrary, they fully understood it. They know that it is correct and see how important is,” he says.

As Examiner.com columnist Dianna Cotter has reported, not a single scientist has stepped forward to disprove his theory of a greenhouse constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium and prevents carbon dioxide emissions from raising global temperatures.

There may be a very simple explanation for the silent treatment, Miskolczi says.

Billions of dollars of research grants at stake

“There are billions of dollars of research grants at stake. And nobody likes to admit his mistakes . . . and that hundreds of research papers in high-reputation scientific journals dealing with the classic greenhouse theory were a waste of time, effort and money."

posted July 29, 2011 02:28 PM            

By Kirk Myers

28 Jan 10 - (Excerpts) - The cooks – er, “scientists” – at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) have released their latest sky-is-falling temperature findings, and they show 2009 as the second-warmest year for the planet since modern record-keeping began in 1880, and 2009 temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere the warmest since 1880.

The head chefs at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), working from a slightly different recipe, reveal a 2009 that was not as well done as NASA’s, ranking only the fifth-warmest since 1880.

There is a major problem with the NASA and NOAA numbers, according to skeptical researchers who have dissected the data: They are inaccurate, the result of cherry-picking, computer manipulation and “best guess” interpretation.

Veteran meteorologist Joe D’Aleo – a long-time critic of official global-warming statistics – says NASA and NOAA are manipulating the data, calling their actions the U.S. version of last year’s Climategate scandal.

“NOAA and NASA are complicit in the misrepresentation or manipulation of data to support the supposed [global warming] consensus,” says D’Aleo, who also heads ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.

What warming?

According to D’Aleo: “Global temperatures peaked in late 1990s, leveled off, and have been declining since 2001. All four official databases – NOAA’s NCDC, Hadley CRU, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAH), and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – confirm the decline.”

Satellite data and land-ocean data sets are diverging.

Last year, NOAA announced that June global temperatures ranked the second-warmest in 130 years, while the two satellite data sources -- UAH and RSS -- ranked the month's temperatures the 15th and 14th coldest, respectively, in 31 years of record-keeping.

In 2009, all regions of the United States were normal or below normal except for the Southwest and Florida, according to the NCDC.

The annual temperature in 2008 was the coolest since 1997, according to NOAA.

Thirty-eight of 50 states set their all-time record temperatures in the decades prior to 1960.

According to the NCDC, 1936 experienced the hottest overall summer on record in the continental United States. In fact, out of 50 states, 22 recorded their all-time high temperature during the 1930s.

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, arctic temperatures are currently below minus 31.27 degrees, more than five degrees below normal and the lowest since 2004.

Last year...October was the third coldest and December the 14th coldest in the United States in 115 years.

Global warming and cooling are cyclical.

Data show it warmed from 1920 to 1940 and again from 1979 to 1998. But temperatures cooled from 1940 to the late 1970s, and have been cooling since 2001. Since World War II, CO2 has risen, even as temperatures have cooled, warmed and then cooled again, undermining the theory that CO2 is the single most important cause of climate change.

Not a single official computer model predicted the recent decline (since 2001) in global temperatures. Yet extended projections from the same models are referenced by eco-alarmists demanding draconian CO2-emission controls and the imposition of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade restrictions.

The NASA/NOAA recipe

To cook temperature data and warm the earth artificially, NASA and NOAA have whipped up a nifty recipe. Here are the not-so-secret ingredients for global warming:

1) Reduce temperature reporting stations across the globe from nearly 6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 or less today.

2) Drop out reporting stations in higher latitudes (colder), higher elevations (colder) and mainly rural locations (colder).

3) Cool early temperature records through data “adjustments” to create the impression of a current warming trend.

4) Fail to compensate or under-compensate for urban growth and land-use changes that can produce localized warming known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

5) Cherry-pick thermometers from reporting stations sited at busy airports and other warm locales (e.g. near the coast or at lower elevations).

6) Fill gaps in the shrunk-down thermometer network by estimating temperatures using a system of global grid boxes. Then “populate” the grids with thermometers stationed at lower latitudes and altitudes, or near the coast and in other warm spots.

7) If there are no temperature stations inside the grid box, use the closest station in a nearby box (for example, at the bottom of a mountain plateau or on the coast).

8) Adjust the final temperature dataset using “homogenization,” a blending process that effectively spreads a warm bias to all surrounding stations.

9) Voila, global warming made easy!

Another bumper cherry-picking season

For example:

NOAA collects data from only 35 sites in Canada, down from 600 in the 1970s.

After 1990, NOAA tripled the number of Canadian reporting stations at lower elevations while reducing by half the number at elevations above 300 feet.

According to D'Aleo, “High-elevation stations have disappeared from the database. Stations in the Andes and Bolivia have vanished.

Only 25 percent of (Russia's) reporting stations were included in the (Hadley CRU's) global temperature calculations. (The same pruned dataset was used by NOAA.). The temperature stations that were removed often show no substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

Anthony Watts of SurfaceStation.org says the U.S. temperature record can't be trusted.

Michael Smith, a California-based software engineer, who was instrumental, along with D'Aleo, in crunching the NOAA/NASA data and exposing the temperature tampering, says the historical climate data used by both agencies is obsolete by 20 years and is a mess.

“The ongoing maintenance of the data has been botched,” he says. “The warming isn’t global and isn’t from CO2. An extraordinary hatred of mountains and other cold locations shows up in the data.”

Global warming claims not credible

In their just-published research paper, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception,” authors D’Aleo and Watts claim that surface-temperature data has been so widely tampered with “that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been a significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th Century.”

“The global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such data should be ignored for decision-making,” they conclude.

posted July 29, 2011 02:29 PM            

Cherry-picking weather stations to hide temperature drop

22 Jan 10 - "Climate researchers and the Weather Channel's founder accuse NASA of the same deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data as Britain's Climate Research Unit," says this article in Investors Business Daily.
In a report on KUSI television, Weather Channel founder John Coleman accuses NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, of "creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based."

Joseph D'Aleo, of www.icecap.us (a great website), said the analysis found that NASA "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."

"The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35."

The article goes on to describe "dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations ... patterns of deletion that could not be accidental ... a scientific travesty committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda."

posted July 29, 2011 02:31 PM            

out of the water

Warming and cooling closely linked to solar activity

3 Jan 09 - In this great 8-minute video, meteorologist John Coleman. founder of the Weather Channel, says that today's warming (½ of one degree since 1880) is no more dramatic than all of the other warming periods during the past 300 million years.

On earth, warming - and cooling - are closely linked to solar activity.

The earth flourishes during warm periods and dies during ice ages, says Coleman.

The IPCC hypothesis is dead. Climategate shows that the data has been manipulated.
The ice at the north pole has started rising again, and polar bear population is expanding rapidly.

posted July 29, 2011 02:32 PM            

“Theory”

Heat rises, it does not fall
By John O’Sullivan

26 Dec 09 - Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, counters the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). He shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
"This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics ... heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain." Visit his website.

See entire article: http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory
Thanks to Leland Hosford for this link

posted July 29, 2011 02:33 PM            

2 Dec 09 - (Excerpts) - The scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the "gravy train" going.

Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.

Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now."

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.

The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space.

Professor Plimer suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research.

posted July 29, 2011 02:34 PM            

12 Nov 09 - Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes and is not responsible for climate change, says Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University.

The recent rise in temperature around the world was caused by solar cycles and other extra terrestrial forces, says Plimer.

"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes," he said. "We have had huge climate change in the past and to think the very slight variations we measure today are the result of our life - we really have to put ice blocks in our drinks."

The world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods, said Professor Plimer.

"If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between CO2 and temperature, there is not," he added.

This article labels Professor Plimer a climate” sceptic,” and "denialist
poster boy." It doesn’t bother to mention that he is Emeritus Professor
of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne (he was Professor and
Head at the University of Melbourne from 1991 to 2005), nor does it
mention that he has published more than 120 scientific papers on geology.
Not exactly a slouch.

Professor Plimer won the Leopold von Buch Plakette (German Geological
Society), Clarke Medal (Royal Society of New South Wales), Sir Willis
Connolly Medal (Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy), was elected
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
and was elected Honorary Fellow of the Geological Society of London.

I am now reading Professor Plimer’s seventh book written for the general
public – Heaven and Earth – which absolutely destroys the concept of human-
caused global warming. I highly recommend it.

posted July 29, 2011 02:35 PM            

A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."

The five signatories to the letter are:

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia
Professor Will Happer, Princeton University
Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford
Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

The letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so.

That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies.

The 160 signatories range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

posted July 29, 2011 02:37 PM            

23 Sep 09 - Excerpts – “The data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

“Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

“In the early 1980s … scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007.

“Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

“Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

“Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

“Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all.

“Enter the dog that ate global warming.

“Jones responded:

"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing
series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular
country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage
availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources
for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We,
therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality
controlled and homogenized) data.

“The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

“So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

“All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.”

posted July 29, 2011 02:40 PM            

Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views
By Marc Morano
__________________ 

'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role'

4 Aug 09 - More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”
“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

posted July 29, 2011 02:42 PM            

8 Jul 09 - (Excerpts) - James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.

‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.

‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

But surely Aussies of all people, with their bushfires and prolonged droughts, ought to be the last to buy into his message? ‘Ah, but the average punter is not a fool. I get sometimes as many as 1,000 letters and emails a day from people who feel helpless and disenfranchised and just bloody sick of all the nonsense they hear about global warming from metropolitan liberals who don’t even know where meat or milk comes from.’

In the days when most people felt rich enough to absorb these extra costs and guilty enough to think they probably deserved them, the politicians could get away with it. But the global economic meltdown has changed all that. As countless opinion surveys have shown, the poorer people feel, the lower down their list of priorities ecological righteousness sinks. ‘It’s one of the few good things to come out of this recession,’ says Plimer. ‘People are starting to ask themselves: “Can we really afford this green legislation?”’

But as Plimer well knows, there is now a powerful and very extensive body of vested interests up against him: governments like President Obama’s, which intend to use ‘global warming’ as an excuse for greater taxation, regulation and protectionism; energy companies and investors who stand to make a fortune from scams like carbon trading; charitable bodies like Greenpeace which depend for their funding on public anxiety; environmental correspondents who need constantly to talk up the threat to justify their jobs.

Ian Plimer’s Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science is published by Quartet (£25).

posted July 29, 2011 02:43 PM            

16 Jul 09 – (Excerpts) - "Around three months ago one of my advisors pulled me aside and asked me what I thought was driving climate change. I smiled and said automatically that it was obviously a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"I had never really looked at the science and just assumed what was reported in the media to be true. Well wasn’t I in for an enormous shock.

The chart Senator Fielding says sparked his doubts about climate change

"My advisor presented me with data and some comments from a number of scientists which suddenly had me asking many questions. This led me to do some further reading and I ultimately decided to head over to Washington on a self funded trip so I could find out more about the science behind climate change.

"I met with one of President Obama’s senior climate change advisors. While these discussions were fruitful, I was left at the end with even more questions than when I had started.

"In an effort to try to get to the bottom of the issue I started to talk to a number of scientists based in Australia to get a feel for what their views were on the subject. Amongst the many presentations, one item really stood out. I was presented with a graph based on data that IPCC use which showed carbon dioxide emissions sky rocketing over the last 15 years while global temperatures had remained steady.

"This graph left me nothing short of flabbergasted. Up until this point I had truly believed that human made carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for climate change.

"However, this graph basically said otherwise. I was left asking myself how I could vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme if it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate change. It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures. However, if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not exist.

"But then enter Al Gore. Here was a man who had a lot of power and went around the world preaching about climate change. I thought he might have the answer for me, the ones I couldn’t extract from the Rudd government.

"I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people.

"After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions. I could hardly believe it.

"I would have thought if Al Gore was really committed to the cause he would want to meet with all senators who had concerns about the science if it would help ensure that the CPRS legislation would pass. Obviously I was wrong.

"I have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question - what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines.

posted July 29, 2011 02:44 PM            

1 Jul 09 - You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

posted July 29, 2011 02:45 PM            

6 Jul 09 - Not only are temperature falling in the United States, they're falling globally.

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

posted July 29, 2011 02:46 PM            

29 Jun 09 – (Excerpts) –“ Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.

“In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming.

“In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role.

“In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.

“New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.

“Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.

“Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."

“A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

“The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.

“Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

posted July 29, 2011 02:47 PM            

5 Jul 09 - “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years,” says Aldrin.

“If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.

“I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.”

posted July 31, 2011 12:56 PM            

Global temperatures have actually fallen in the last one and half decade, with the current winter in Europe and North Eastern United States being particularly severe leading to dozens of fatalities and disruption of air, road & rail transport. In North East USA, government and business activities were grounded for a whole week because of the severe winter.

Last April, the British Antarctic Survey reported that the Antarctic ice sheet is increasing. Hear them: “Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade." Furthermore, recent NASA satellite images disclosed by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reveal that the supposedly endangered polar ice caps have now recovered. Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service affirms that parts of the Artic ice are now thicker than usual.

Just last month (Jan 2010) in a scandal dubbed glacier-gate, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reversed its erroneous prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Dr Murari Lal, the IPCC scientist behind the falsehood admitted it wasn't based on any sound scientific research, but was an alarmist ruse to bamboozle world leaders into precipitous action.

Glacier-gate isn't the only scandal exposing the falsehoods feeding the global warming hysteria. Climate-gate was another such scandal in November last year at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia. Hacked e-mails revealed CRU climate “scientists” manipulating and cooking scientific data, as well as an orchestrated conspiracy to silence scientists skeptical of global warming by refusing to publish or cite their papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Data from CRU are a major input to IPCC climate projections.

London Telegraph newspaper dubs Climate-gate the greatest scandal of the century, and the British weather service is investigating the fraud including full review of 160 years of temperature data used by the University of East Anglia's CRU.

The conspiracy of crooked CRU scientists to thwart publications by global warming dissenters in peer-reviewed scientific journals is just one of the plots to intimidate and frustrate global warming skeptics. Way back in 1990, a British Channel Four TV documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy, exposed discriminatory blockage research funds to scientists skeptical of global warming.

In a 2007 interview with Investor's Business Daily, Professor William Gray of the Atmosphere department, Colorado State University lamented that “fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. Because they know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out”.

Media badmouthing of dissenters is yet another weapon in the arsenal of global warming propagandists, with CBS News' Scott Pelley equating global warming critics to “holocaust deniers”.

Threats are also on the table, as global warmists like Weather Channel's climatologist Dr. Heidi Cullen advocate withdrawal of American Meteorological Society approval from skeptical TV weathermen.

Nonetheless, undaunted critics like the Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre have taken up the gauntlet against global warming conspirators. He and his colleague Ross McKitrick successfully debunked the scary Hockey stick curve - a graphical representation purportedly showing marked rise in global temperatures between the 19th and 20th century supposedly due to human industrialization.

Never mind that the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1400AD) when there were no carbon dioxide emitting power stations or SUVs, was warmer than today's industrialized world. Even much warmer was the Holocene Thermal Maximum some 6000-8000 years ago when there was virtually no human civilization.

In a seminal treatise published in 2003, “M&M” - as the duo of McIntyre and McKitrick have come to be known in global warming circles - demonstrated flaws in the data samples and computer models used by Micheal Mann et al (1998) to concoct the phony Hockey stick. The computer model used was programmed to always produce the frightening Hockey Stick regardless of data input. This is the kind of wish-washy dubious “science” on which anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is based.

In 2006, a US Congress commissioned investigation team led by Edward Wegman not only debunked the Hockey stick curve and other faulty climate presumptions, they concluded that global warming “cannot be supported” by scientific facts.

An audit of NOAA temperature monitoring stations - used to collate temperature data - by meteorologist Anthony Watts and Colorado state University climatologist Robert Peilke found that contrary to US National Weather Service guidelines, 89% of the temperature stations were sited less than 30 metres from a heat source, resulting in spuriously high temperature data.

In another recent study, Kester Green and Scott Armstrong of the US National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) audited the global warming climate forecasts in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and discovered that the IPCC violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing climate predictions.

The intellectual dishonesty of the global warming propagandists knows no bounds. In 2002, a UK court ruled that former US Vice President Al-Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth contained numerous falsehoods.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming falsely ascribe it to increase carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for energy. So much so that the Obama administration even got the United States EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to declare CO2, which we all exhale a danger to public health.

Thus the cap & trade nonsense might well apply to we humans and other animals in order to stop us from polluting the atmosphere with the CO2 we breathe out, which plants require to grow.

As Craig Idso of the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change rightly points out, increased atmospheric CO2 is actually a boon for plant life that can help boost agricultural output for the growing human population. In a 2002 New Phytologist review of over 150 scientific studies involving 79 plant species, Jablonski et al affirmed that extra CO2 boosts plant production of flowers, fruits and seeds.

Human activity accounts for less than 3.4% of global CO2 emissions, nature being responsible for the remaining 96.6%. In other words even if there were no human activity, 96.6% of global CO2 production would continue unabated.

Furthermore, CO2 constitutes a meagre 0.038% of all atmospheric gases and is not even the major greenhouse gas - water vapour is, accounting for up to 90% of greenhouse effect.

Add to this the much more important non-greenhouse factors influencing global climate - solar variation, ocean currents, volcanoes, earth's axis tilt & orbit, atmospheric aerosols etc - then the fallacy of the human generated greenhouse gases causing global warming becomes even more spurious.

Several scientific reports even disconnect global warming from atmospheric CO2. Nature online asserts that the polar ice caps were formed when atmospheric CO2 was 760ppm (parts per million), and the present CO2 is just 380ppm. Furthermore as Dr. Holly Fretwell of George Mason University rightly points out, data from the last 650,000 years tell us that temperatures changes actually precede changes in atmospheric CO2.

So CO2 emissions can't be causing global warming. Even an IPCC scientist, Dr Vincent Gray agrees - “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere.”

Other dissenting IPCC scientists include Yuri Izrael, the IPCC Vice Chair who in February 2007 wrote that the “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified…there is no serious threat to the climate”.

Following release of the IPCC 2001 report, its lead author, Dr. John Christy rebuked media sensationalism, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario is not going to happen.”

No more than 50 CRU-type “scientists” of IPCC's inflated 2500 figure are responsible for its misleading alarmist reports about CO2 emissions from human industry. On the contrary, over 4000 scientists including 72 Nobel laureates have signed on the Heidelberg Appeal (1992) calling for an end to the irrational scare-mongering about human industry.

The eminent scientists noted: "We are…worried at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development…Humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing nature to its needs and not the reverse.”

Global warming is part of regular cyclical change that began long before humans evolved on this planet. In the last 1billion years, there has been at least four ice ages interspersed with warming periods. During previous warming periods between ice ages, the earth was much warmer than today with no ice sheets even at the poles.

At that time humanity didn't even exist. It is therefore preposterous for today's eco-alarmists to claim that humanity is responsible for global warming. Presently we are in the interglacial period of an ice age that began some 2 million years ago in the Pleistocene epoch, as evidenced by the prominent Antarctic & Arctic ice sheets. So apocalyptic global warming is way off.

Perhaps because of the aforementioned widely reported global cooling events, the apocalyptic global warming doomsayers have now switched gears and now talk of anthropogenic “climate change”, as if climate was static prior to human industrialization.

Under this new rubric of ��climate change”, all manner of climate related disasters are now attributed to man-caused greenhouse gas emissions. These include hurricanes like Katrina and the advancing Sahara desertification. Never mind that the Sahara was desertified from the thriving savannah it once was thousands of years ago when there was no human industrial activity.

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data debunk any connection between hurricanes and human industrialization. In a recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Jan' 2008), the NOAA actually documents a decrease in hurricane activity over the last century. Last year there were no major hurricane scares even though human CO2 production has not declined.

Here in Naija, the Climate Action Network even includes gully erosion as a global warming issue. Really? Do the follow-follow egg-heads there really believe reducing CO2 emissions will stop gully erosion in the South East? Instead of chasing shadows at recently concluded climate summit in Copenhagen, they should go after our thieving politicians and bureaucrats who steal and misappropriate Ecology funds meant to solve the problem.

Thankfully Copenhagen was a flop, and hopefully all other such idiotic machinations by climate change wackos will also come to naught.

This of course is not to deny that there are pressing environmental challenges that need to be addressed; such as wanton deforestation, advancing Sahara and drying up of Lake Chad. Drastic innovative solutions are required not unrealistic idiocy of shutting down industries that are required to cater for growing human population.

Need we remind these climate change nut-jobs that de-industrialization of the Nigerian economy is largely responsible for our astronomical unemployment rate with attendant increased crime wave – kidnapping, armed robberies, ethno-religious clashes etc?

Switching power production to “green energy” sources (solar, wind etc) is totally unrealistic as their low power output is grossly inadequate for growing industrialized economies. Nuclear power is currently the major greenhouse gas free energy source that can easily rival or even replace dependence on fossil fuels, but this option is completely abhorrent to the global warming crowd. The Eco-wackos also often object to hydroelectric power on the grounds of adverse environmental impact.

With regards to the advancing Sahara, the technology already exists to afforest the entire Sahara and eliminate the desert even if it means constructing desalination plants and piping fresh water through the desert.

There are already tens of thousands of kilometers of pipelines for crude oil and natural gas, so why not for freshwater which is a much more sustainable resource of much greater long term benefit? The Sahara's underground water reserves would also be useful in this regard.

There is therefore an urgent need for a Sahara Afforestation Commission whose membership should include all the affected West & North African Countries.

posted August 19, 2011 09:58 AM            

"Green" Space aliens may destroy humanity to prevent our enviornmental destruction from spreading to other space cultures.

I'm not making this up!

My question is...why are idiots like these faux scientists still working on the public payroll..at NASA or any place else?

Another question. Is there any intelligent life at NASA or in the "man made global warming religion"?

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.....

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.....

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write....