12 Facts about Global Climate Change that you won't read in the popular Press

Written by Joseph D’Aleo, Energy Tribune

Wednesday, August 26 2009 12:33

1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.

2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces.

3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002.

4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food.

5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.

7 Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peerreviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that reduces any small greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide.

8 Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming – and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming

9 The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades.

10 The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the largescale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed N.O.A.A. buoys confirm global ocean cooling.

11 Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especially in the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent.

12 Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent last year was the greatest in the satellitemonitoring era. We are running ahead of last year’s record pace.
What will it take for the media to let go of their biases and begin doing their job, reporting the truth?

Joseph D’Aleo is executive director of Icecap.




http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970

http://icecap.us/index.php

World Wildlife Fund Use Scaremongering And False Science To Attract Support.




Carbonman
Aug 30 2009
 

Below is an e-mail I received as a subscriber to the World Wildlife Fund newsletter.


It's a direct statement from the belief system of the CEO of this organization.This is a strategically emotive and some what desperate plea from him, to try to convince us that we are responsible for the natural activity of Climatic events in the World and that Legislation will save us from these naturally occurring events.


What intrusive Insanity is this? and just look at all the scaremongering here aimed directly at the future of our kids and finishing with 'this is just the beginning', he's threatening you to act or else! with no truthful or scientifically verifiable basis for his behavior, and a bit of cash for the WWF would help too while you're still in shock, Thanks very much!  





The World is loosing it's senses!..............Time to wake up and push back against this nonsense!



I've also included below an example of the WWF'S false science and shock doctrine used in their web sites questions and answers slot related to Arctic Polar Bears.


 

Act Now for Our Kids and Our Future...‏

From:	World Wildlife Fund (ecomments@wwfus.org)
Sent:	30 August 2009 12:17:26

A Message from Carter Roberts, President and CEO,
World Wildlife Fund:

WWF needs your help to protect the future of our planet and the places and species we care about. Congress is considering critical climate legislation that would create a clean energy economy, curb greenhouse gas pollution and prepare for climate change impacts. The bill passed the House in June and is now before the Senate. We need your help in ensuring this important bill passes. Please call your senators and tell them to vote “yes” on climate legislation.

Climate change threatens our future and our way of life. A new report by 13 government agencies details climate change impacts being felt in every region of the U.S. right now. And they will only get worse. Climate change poses a fundamental threat to the places, species and people WWF seeks to protect.

While talk show hosts and pundits argue about climate change, we can see our world changing before our eyes, right down to our own back yards. Changing weather patterns, stronger storms, more intense heat waves, and more floods and wildfires are changing the things we love. And this is just the beginning.

We need your help. Here is what you can do to make your voice heard:

• Call your senators and urge them to support climate change legislation. The Senate switchboard number
  is 1-866-220-0044.
• Forward this email to your friends, family and people you know.
• Visit us often at ActForOurFuture.org.
• Follow our campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

More WWF false science and shock doctrine......

Polar Bears listed as Endangered 

Question:

I heard polar bears were listed on the Endangered Species Act? What does that mean?

Answer:

On May 14, 2008 –The U.S. government listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This means the threatened species designation will now provide additional legal protections for the bears, including the conservation of critical habitat and the development of a government-supported recovery plan. Climate change is destroying vital polar bear habitat, putting the species at risk of extinction. The ESA listing is an important first step to saving the bears and their habitat. WWF is very happy with the decision. We are part of a coalition of Alaska native and conservation organizations that have pushed for this designation for many years.

Additional info:

The survival of the polar bear is tied to its Arctic sea ice habitat, which is melting more rapidly than at any other time in recorded human history. Sea ice, which polar bears depend on for hunting seals and other prey, melted to record low levels last summer. Some scientists have predicted that the summer Arctic sea ice could be gone entirely as early as 2013. If current sea ice trends continue, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will be lost by 2050.


http://worldwildlife.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/worldwildlife.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5371&p_created=1210863776&p_sid=5uQ45JGj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yNDIsMjQyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ%21%21&p_li=&p_topview=1 


For Arctic Ice melting science and Polar Bears info see below:


http://energy.probeinternational.org/thick-arctic-ice-confounds-scientists


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html








 

Thick Arctic ice confounds scientists

Lawrence Solomon

4 May 2009

 

Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition., The scientists - a 20-member contingent from Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Italy - spent one month exploring the North Pole as well as never-before measured regions of the Arctic. Among their findings: Rather than finding newly formed ice to be two metres thick, "we measured ice thickness up to four metres," stated a spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of the Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest scientific organization.
The Alfred Wegener Institute is one of the six research organizations involved in the month-long expedition, called Pan-Arctic Measurements and Arctic Climate Model Inter Comparison Project. The other five include three from Canada (Environment Canada, University of Alberta, York University) one from the U.S. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and one from Italy (Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

 
The path-breaking project broke new ground by employing the Polar 5 (see photo, left), a fixed-wing aircraft, rather than a helicopter with its more limited range. The Polar 5 not only landed in the Arctic ice, it towed a device called EM-Bird on an 80 metre-long rope 20 metres above the ice surface. The EM-Bird conducts electromagnetic (EM) induction sounding for ice thickness measurements.
The thickest ice that the expedition found was at Ellesmere Iceland, where thicknesses often exceeded 15 metres.


http://energy.probeinternational.org/thick-arctic-ice-confounds-scientists

BBC Policy to Stifle Global Warming Science Critics

Lawrence Solomon

13 Jul 2009

 

Daily Mail, UK

BBC anchor Peter Sissons, who announced his retirement last month, has gone public with his criticism of BBC reporting standards, saying that political correctness now rules.

As reported in the Daily Mail, he stated that "it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming."

"I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

"The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.
'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html#ixzz0L8aiSbVy&D

http://energy.probeinternational.org/bbc-policy-stifle-global-warming-science

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE 

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. 

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.


At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.
I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest­ruc­tion of trop­ical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.
That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

INTERVIEW BY HELEN DOWD

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
 

 

 

 

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL  June26 2009

 

  Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Associated Press

Steve Fielding

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. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
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. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Chamber Threatens Lawsuit if EPA Rejects Climate Science 'Trial' 

Published: August 25, 2009 

The nation's largest business group is asking U.S. EPA to hold a public debate on climate change science -- or face litigation -- as the agency prepares to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/08/25/25climatewire-chamber-threatens-lawsuit-if-epa-rejects-cli-62828.html

Exposed: Climate fear promoters greatest fear; A Public trial of the 'Evidence' of global warming fears!

Aug 26 2009

'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shocked the global warming debate by its formal call to hold a public global warming trial to decide on the “evidence” that mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial “complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.” Some are referring to the potential for a global warming trial as the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce wanting to put AGW (anthropogenic global warming) creationism on trial.”

Brenda Ekwurzel of the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, is discouraging the idea of a trial. This is the same Ekwurzel who claimed global warming made it “less cool” this summer. See: Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' – July 27, 2009

More significantly, it is the same Ekwurzel who badly lost a public debate over man-made climate fears in 2007. See: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – March 16, 2007 & see: Climate Fear Promoters Avoid Debates and Lose When They Engage in Them)

No wonder the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for a full trial on global warming claims. Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, as the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse.

In 2009, a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated.

A small sampling of developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. Lack of warming for past decade and recent global cooling, follow a peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm. In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found "No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974."

The news is so grim for man-made climate fear activists that they are already looking for the next environmental scare to hype! See: AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer Laure David touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarming for us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009 & UK Green Party: 'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½'

Click climatedepot.com link to read more

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3927

http://climatedepot.com/a/2597/Exposed-Climate-Fear-Promoters-Greatest-Fear--A-Public-Trial-of-the-Evidence-of-Global-Warming-Fears-Inconvenient-Developments-Continue-to-Mount

James Hansen's former NASA supervisor declares himself a skeptic

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen "Embarrassed NASA" 

 Jan 27 2009

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

 

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.   

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

 

  “As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added.

Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and awarded the AIAA's Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing. He was also awarded the Radio Wave Award by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan for contributions to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission -- a joint NASA-Japanese Space Agency satellite. Theon has authored or coauthored more than 50 NASA Reports, journal articles, monographs, chapters in books, and edited two books in the scientific literature.   

 

Hansen 'is a political activist who spreads fear'

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Dutch scientist calls bluff on climate alarmism

Dutch scientist calls bluff on climate alarmism
 

PRESS RELEASE

09h00 - Friday 22 May 2009 - without embargo


On Thursday 21 May 2009, at Stormont, Belfast, Dutch scientist Hans Schreuder, who now lives in East Anglia, told the Northern Ireland Climate Change Committee that there is no evidence for global warming or climate change being man-made.

Quoting from eminent scientists world-wide, Mr Schreuder dismissed the entire climate alarmist scenario.

From his testimony, these quotes:

"[...] the longstanding paradigm says that because of trace gases like CO2, the atmosphere heats the earth. But this isn't true."

"Any and all evidence that has ever been presented to support the idea that carbon dioxide has an effect on global temperatures has been biased, opinionated and based on an agenda that pre-emptively dismissed alternative explanations."

"Computer simulations regard the earth as a flat disk, without North or South Pole, without the Tropics, without clouds and bathed in a 24 hour haze of sunshine. The reality is two icy poles and a tropical equatorial zone, with each and every square metre of our earth receiving an ever varying and different amount of energy from the sun, season to season and day to day. This reality is too difficult to input to a computer.

Did you realise that?"

"If carbon dioxide really is such a danger to mankind, as the US Environmental Protection Agency would have us believe, then the upcoming Olympic Games should be cancelled, as well as all other big sporting events, as well as all road transport and all air transport and all coal- and gas-fired powerstations should be shut down. Clearly there is no need for such drastic action and clearly carbon dioxide is not dangerous at all."

"The above makes a mockery of saying that today’s level is unprecedented."

"As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated infrared energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it - if only!"

"The periodicity in the data and the unequivocal solar linkage were not even addressed. This is not science. The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart. Heads will roll.”

"Any and all schemes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are futile in terms of having an effect on global temperatures or the climate and any and all carbon trading exchanges are a fraudulent exercise amounting to no more than hidden taxation."

END OF PRESS RELEASE

Hans Schreuder

East Anglia, England
www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/

http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/NI_oral_evidence.pdf

New Climate Change Bill

Gormley to draft climate change Bill


Tuesday, July 28, 2009


HARRY McGEE, Political Staff


THE GOVERNMENT has given its approval for the drafting of a climate change Bill in what is seen as a concession to the Green Party.

At its weekly meeting last Wednesday, the Cabinet gave the green light to Minister for the Environment John Gormley to draft the heads of the legislation.

The Bill was expected to form the core part of the programme for government negotiations in the autumn, talks that were agreed after the disastrous performance of the junior Coalition partner in the local elections.

While the details and targets of the Bill will be subject to negotiation when Mr Gormley presents the draft legislation, a senior source in the Green Party emphasised that the key gain had been the acceptance by Fianna Fáil that there was a need to give climate change full statutory recognition.

“The important point is that the principles and policies will be enshrined in law,” the source continued. “Climate change will be integrated into all policy objectives. There will be a statutory obligation on all Government departments to comply with climate change objectives and to provide the necessary mechanisms to deliver on them. This is the icing on the cake for the Greens in Government.”

The legislation will be closely linked to a new national climate change strategy due during 2010. Measures proposed in previous Government strategies on climate change from 2000 onwards have only been partially achieved.

Several leading Green Party figures, including Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan, have said they would like the legislation to be modelled on the British climate change act introduced last November. The British legislation specifies concrete targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Others are not convinced that the British approach is as far-reaching as has been portrayed. It has been pointed out that that legislation will accommodate both the programme to build new nuclear power stations and the new runway at Heathrow airport.

The Greens say new legislation here would result in a sea change in the Government’s outlook with every major policy and initiative being “climate-proofed”. They argue that the cost of these changes will be neutral and will benefit Ireland’s competitiveness at a time when all developed economies are moving towards low-carbon models.
The new Bill is expected to be published ahead of the global conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Air Con

10 REASONS WHY

Carbonman

Aug 2009

 

• Climate Change is not new or even unique to industrialized man, the Climate has always been Changing. The Vikings farmed Greenland when it was a green land. They didn't drive cars, create CO2 emissions, or the Climate Change which caused Greenland to get colder.

• Like the Vikings, We are not driving or making the Climate Change by CO2 emissions. The work of hundreds of scientists can confirm this. There is no independent, unequivocal, verifiable or reliable scientific evidence to support the theory that Climate Change is driven, caused by, or adversely affected by Man made carbon related activity. If there was, there would not be so many voices of dissent in the international science community.

• In the Nobel prize winning film, 'An inconvenient Truth', by Al Gore, A case against it's content, brought forward by a parent to the U.K. High Court, resulted in a ruling which determined that the "Truth" was "alarmist and exaggerated", and has ordered that it must come with a disclaimer to point out untruths if used in UK schools. Why would Al Gore need to do this if the evidence is so strong?
  

• The official science behind Global warming and Man Made Climate Change used in the Al Gores film can now be proven to be questionable and unreliable, which leads to the questionable integrity of the IPCC, the World authority on Man made Climate Change, as well as a collaborator and shared Nobel Prize winner.
  

• The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific organization made up of climate scientists, it's a UN political Panel with a political agenda, and therefore is only interested in collecting suitable scientific data through a small hand picked group of scientists, for the purpose of supporting a specific political agenda. In this case an agenda built on top of a naturally occurring Climate Change phenomena. In other words the policy came first and the science data has been tailored through climate computer modeling, which can be easily corrupted and is well known to be scientifically unreliable.
  

• The current political agenda is to convince the World that Man made Climate Change is real, carbon is the cause and therefore we need to change our ways by means of a carbon tax. But CO2 is not causing Climate Change. There is no independent verifiable scientific evidence for this, so what is the true purpose of this agenda?

• Man made Climate Change is a political agenda supported and driven largely by bureaucrats, misinformed environmentalists and a sensation hungry media world. Favourite lines are, 'Single most challenging problem facing mankind','Irreversible','imminent catastrophe','Climate Chaos','Disastrous consequences','Rising sea levels',and '2 degrees to disaster'. This is classic shock doctrine, and fear mongering based on zero evidence yet so fantastical to persuade us to trust the word of the authorities, drop all common sense, and to act emotively out of fear without thinking rationally.
  

• The Climate Change science and warnings we hear about in the main stream media have a frequent tendency to focus on exaggerated and catastrophic predictions.Predictions are the business of psychics and palm readers, not science and scientists. Weather forecasters can't even predict a warm summer correctly. Supporting the theory of Man made Climate Change under these conditions is offensive to our intelligence and the integrity of the scientific process to reveal the truth about our reality, in a controlled and verifiable manner.
  

• Hundreds of eminent international scientists including past IPCC panel members oppose the IPCC consensus on Man Made Climate Change, and many agree with the science demonstrating the central and driving role of the Sun in relation to Climate Changes. This theory can be illustrated and scientifically verified by historical records and patterns of Solar activity dating back to 'The Little Ice Age'(1645-1750) when the Thames of London froze over for a period.
  

• Every scientist agrees that World Climate temperatures have always fluctuated between periods of warmth and cool. Current World temperatures have remained reasonably steady since 1998 even though CO2 levels continue to soar, and there is scientific evidence that we are currently at the end of a warming period, which could indicate a cooler period to come in this century. This is why the emphasis on the term 'Global Warming', has recently been readdressed by the term 'Man made Climate Change'.The awareness of this evidence may indicate why policy makers are in such a hurry to rush through a carbon tax and the fact that the term 'Global Warming', has all but disappeared from official use indicates a fear of the general public noticing that the temperature is not rising at all, particularly after some of the wettest summers and coldest winters on record.

• Conclusion: The Climate has always been Changing, It's not CO2 so what is the real agenda?. Lord Stern, the World Bank's former chief economist, was credited with shifting the debate about climate change from an environmental focus to the economic impacts three years ago. We all agree that we need to free ourselves from oil dependency, and become more sustainable, and this is in the process of happening naturally anyway. The Green economy is independently driven by the economic need for sustainable healthy living rather than the need to Save the Planet from Man made Climate Change. The main point is if CO2 is not a problem, why are we making it so, and why are we being deceived from the very top of the Worlds political stage. We all have a democratic right to have the science verified publicly, transparently and independently if we are being asked to pay a carbon tax on our lifestyles, otherwise this is Dictatorial and a carbon tax will have a detrimental effect on our economies and no effect on the climate what so ever. How wasteful is this when money is needed so urgently in other areas such as our failing health systems for example. Supporting any form of carbon tax without any real independently verifiable science, is currently deceitful, futile, immoral, and economic suicide.

• One reference supporting each point:
  

1. http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
   
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
   
3. http://www.newsmax.com/left_coast_report/Think_Tank_to_Gore/2007/10/16/56199.html
   
4. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html
   
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
   
6. http://www.change.ie/en/About/
   
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm
   
8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4979855/Climate-change-leading-the-world-into-catastrophe-claims-Lord-Stern.html
   
9. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
   
10. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1538