Will The Real Prime Minister Of Australia Please Step Forward

 

New study affirms natural climate change 

A new paper affirms the earth’s long, moderate, natural climate cycle. Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India’s Space Research Organization, says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming.

January 31, 2011

by DENNIS AVERY

CHURCHVILLE, VA—It’s nice when people validate your work. Fred Singer and I—co-authors of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years—are currently basking in the glow of a new paper that affirms the earth’s long, moderate, natural climate cycle. The study is by Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India’s Space Research Organization. He says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming.

Dr. Rao says the data between 1960 and 2005 show lots fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth, due to a periodic expansion of the sun’s magnetic field. The bigger solar magnetic field blocked many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise have hit earth. Fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth meant fewer water droplets shattering in our atmosphere, and thus fewer of the low, wet clouds that deflect solar heat back into space. So the earth warmed.

Fred and I tried to tell the world in 2007 that the moderate 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle was the cause of the warming since 1850, based on historic and paleoclimatic evidence. The cosmic ray linkage was put forth in 2008 by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. The UN’s panel on climate change dismissed that whole approach, claiming the variations in the sun’s irradiance were far too small to account for the rapid warming from 1976–98.

The flaw in the UN reasoning is clear, however. The alarmists claim the global warming since 1976 has been too rapid to be caused by natural forces, and therefore must be man-made. However, the earth’s Industrial Revolution went global after 1945—releasing the first big flush of CO2 emissions. That burst of greenhouse gases should have sharply boosted the earth’s temperatures. Instead, the earth’s temperature declined from 1940–75.

Commenting on Rao’s paper, V. Ramanathan of the U.S.-based Scripps Institute of Oceanography says, “The observed rapid warming trends during the last 40 years cannot be accounted for by trends in [cosmic rays].” But didn’t earth’s warming from 1915–1940, too early to blame on CO2,  move just about as fast for just about as long as the “unnatural” warming from 1976–98? 

Did human greenhouse emissions account for the other 60 percent of our Modern Warming? Well, a modern city is fully capable of warming its own temperatures by 7 degrees C or more through expanded brick and blacktop and lost greenery. A huge number of rural weather stations have been dropped from the rolls in recent years, putting our thermometers still more heavily in debt to Urban Heat Islands.

A study by Dr. Eugenia Kalnay of the University of Maryland says 40 percent of our net temperature increase since 1940 was actually caused by expanding urban heat islands and land use changes. Since the official net warming over that period is only about 0.2 degree C, that doesn’t leave much for Al Gore to deplore.

Nor do these studies offer much support for the EPA’s recent finding that global warming presents “public endangerment.” One of EPA’s own senior scientists produced a contrary evaluation, but he’s been retired and his paper has been ignored up by the government and the mass media.

India may be the most scientifically advanced country that refuses to agree the current global warming is man-made. Dr. Rao’s paper has just been accepted by India’s most prestigious science journal, Current Science.

Sources

1) The Hindustan Times, January 21, 2011.
2) E. Kalney and M. Cai. “Estimating the Impact of Urbanization and Land Use on U.S. Surface Temperature Trends: Preliminary Report,” Nature 423 (29 May 2003): 528-31.

source:

http://www.cfact.org/a/1875/New-study-affirms-natural-climate-change?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=331f46161b-Can%27t_sell_warming_Call_it_clean_energy3_7_2011&utm_medium=email

UNICEF GOES INSANE WITH THE HELP OF A C4 NEWS PRESENTER

Beware the global warming fascists: Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified for daring to question green orthodoxy

At London’s Royal Court Theatre last week, a new play opened to rave reviews. It’s about an environmental scientist who — horror of horrors — doesn’t believe in global warming. 

The play is called The Heretic and, though I haven’t seen it yet, I could already sink to my knees in gratitude. Because in my own quiet and reasonable way, I am that global warming heretic.

In the past decade or so I’ve been mocked, vilified, besmirched — I’ve even been booed off a theatre stage — simply for expressing the view that the case for global warming and climate change, and in particular the emphasis on the damage caused by carbon dioxide, the so-called greenhouse gas that is going to do for us all, has been massively over-stated. 

Demonised: Johnny Ball, pictured with DJ daughter Zoe, has faced a vicious campaign because of his views on climate change and greenhouse gases

For daring to take this contrarian view, I’ve lost bookings, had talks cancelled and been the subject of a sinister internet campaign against me that only came to an end following the intervention of the police.

There was even a painful moment recently when if you Googled my name, the second site that came up mysteriously redirected you to a site offering explicit pornographic pictures. Nothing to do with me, I hasten to add, and one call was enough to quickly rectify the problem, but I fear more damage had been done.

For taking an intellectual stand, my name and reputation have been comprehensively trashed. And something very similar has happened to Dr David Bellamy, who has never been shy about expressing his belief that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon. His media career, particularly in television, has suffered as a result.
Britain seems to have become a remarkably intolerant place, a place where healthy debate seems to be stifled rather than encouraged.

But am I going to bow to this bullying and keep quiet? No I am not, and for one simple reason. 

As someone who has dedicated his life to popularising science and mathematics for young people, I find it hard — hurtful even — to be cast in the role of villain.

Blinded, maybe even brainwashed by the climate-change zealots, we are spending so much money on reducing carbon emissions that there is a danger of us bankrupting ourselves — and future generations — to solve a problem that in the opinions of a growing number of scientists and opinion-formers has been wildly exaggerated.

To put it another way, those who have been worshipping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions — and how quickly they adopted the messianic zeal and intolerance of a religion — may find that they have been deifying not just a false god but a ruinously expensive one, too.

As someone who has dedicated his life to popularising science and mathematics for young people, I find it hard — hurtful even — to be cast in the role of villain. I’m also aware that many of the people who have been kind enough to enjoy my TV programmes over the years are surprised to hear me — nice, cheery, Johnny Ball — expressing such strong and arguably provocative views. So let me explain how I came to them.

A quarter of a century ago, when I was churning out television series almost twice a year, I hit upon a successful way of working. For every series of six science shows, I would come up with seven ideas — six plus a spare — and every one of those shows, including the spares, got made. Except for one: about renewable energy, a subject then very much in its infancy.

I instinctively warmed to the almost Heath Robinson-like engineering behind those early attempts to harvest the energy of the wind and the waves, the tide and the sun.
But there was a big problem: Hard as I tried, I couldn’t make the sums add up. These devices either didn’t produce anything like enough energy, or the energy they produced was too expensive to be economically viable.

None came close to reproducing the power of the physical process that has driven our civilisation since the Industrial Revolution — the heating of water. Be it by charcoal, coal, gas or nuclear energy, it’s warmed until the temperature approaches 100C, and it suddenly expands to become power-generating, engine-driving steam.  

High price: Producing electricity using gas or nuclear power costs less than 3p per unit, but wind power costs 9.8p

Until renewable energy could do something like that, I couldn’t see how it had a serious future. I checked the sums — they were right — and walked away. The show never got made.

Which would be completely unimportant but for one thing. In the 25 years since, the ‘science’ of global warming and climate change, with its carefully selected graphs of rising temperatures, sea-level and CO2 levels (by the way, other carefully selected graphs can show the exact opposite) has all but conquered the world, and no opposing view is to be tolerated. 

The cult of reducing carbon emissions shapes everything we do, at local, national and global levels. The very future of the planet, we are told, hangs on our dispensing with fossil fuels and adopting renewable energy sources as quickly as possible.

But here’s the problem — 25 years may have passed since I tried to make that TV programme and the technology has improved a little, but the sums still don’t add up.

I’m quite sure renewable sources have a minor contribution to make to our energy needs, but they still don’t produce anything like enough energy at anything resembling the right price to offer a viable future.

If it costs 2.3p to produce one unit of electricity using gas, it costs 2.5p to produce the same electricity using nuclear energy and perhaps 2.9p using coal. Using wind power, the cost is an astonishing 9.8p. 

In the face of such figures, most reasonable people interested in cleaner, sustainable energy would surely go off and build carbon-free, nuclear power stations or gas-fuelled ones. 

David Bellamy's TV career has suffered because he dared to express his views that climate change was a natural phenomenon

But advocates of global warming with their dire warnings about the evils of CO2 emissions have got too firm a hold, their thinking become too widely accepted, for anything that sensible to be an option. Instead, they’re changing the sums, and manipulating the maths.

The result is a growing burden of green taxes, renewable energy subsidies and unseen charges that will cost us — and particularly our children — billions and billions of pounds. 

Already, these additional costs are adding 50 per cent to all our energy bills, and 50 per cent to air-fares. At a time of severe economic hardship, when thousands of jobs are being lost and households struggle to make ends meet, this is a potentially ruinous burden.

But it’s also — in my opinion and that of a growing number of others — an unnecessary burden. I’m all for the careful use of the Earth’s resources and I applaud the many breakthroughs that have been made both in the recycling of these scarce resources and in the battle against environmental pollution. 

I want a clean, green planet. But this obsession with controlling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is now as dangerous as it is ridiculous.

Along with water and oxygen, carbon dioxide is one of the three basic requirements for sustainable life. And yet this natural gas — only 4 per cent of which is produced by man — has been branded as the greatest threat to the future of this planet. Well, forgive me, but I think that’s nonsense.

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the water content of air has far more impact on temperature than carbon dioxide levels do. It’s a common-sense belief based on simple observation — we all know the impact that a layer of cloud has on temperature — and basic chemistry that tells us that when we burn any sort of fossil fuel two molecules of water are produced for every one molecule of carbon dioxide.  

But any increase in air temperature produced by raised water vapour levels will be minor and largely self-regulating. So climate change is absolutely normal and in my lifetime has never yet resulted in any signs that should cause alarm.

Already I can hear those wholeheartedly committed to the global warming cause queuing up to cast the first stone at such blatant heresy. But should we trust them?
Not if they include the likes of Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who last year was forced to admit the panel had exaggerated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were shrinking. Or Dr Phil Jones, the Cambridge climatologist at the centre of a scandal after he was accused of manipulating and supressing climate change data. 

Or the scientists who realised that a 0.7C rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years was hardly the stuff of environmental Armageddon, so they looked for a particularly chilly year against which to compare today’s figures, and found 1961.
Suddenly, global temperatures had gone up at 0.7 degrees in just 50 years: now, that was more like it.

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the water content of air has far more impact on temperature than carbon dioxide levels do.

It’s statistics like these that give rise to the sort of absurd pronouncement we saw at the Copenhagen climate change conference late in 2009, where it was grandly announced that at a cost of $100 billion a year we might just be able to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C by the end of the 21st century.

I regard that as an almost unimaginable amount of money effectively being poured down the drain, taking the futures of millions of young people with it. And that makes even a mild-mannered chap like me very angry. 

I’ve had the good fortune to live in a period when things have always got progressively better, where each ten years is always a bit better than the previous ten years, where children can grow up pretty safe in the knowledge that they will enjoy better lives than their parents. Until now, when we’re suddenly told it all has to stop.

I don’t make television programmes any more, but I do still visit 80-100 schools a year and I know what children are taught about climate change, and what the result is. They accept it absolutely and will solemnly tell you that they always turn off lights, close doors and, at school, have installed solar panels on the roof. 

They tell me how worried they are about global warming, rising sea-levels and, having seen alarmist films such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the imminent prospect of all human life being wiped out.

And this breaks my heart. I want children to be excited about the future, not cowed by it. I want them to grow up in a world which is going to be better than the one their parents knew, not significantly worse. I want them to grow up excited by technology and new inventions, not worrying about where the electricity is going to come from to power them.   

Efficient: Power stations are as working at twice the level they were 18 years ago and their safety record is second to none

And that exciting future could still be theirs. There is plenty of power out there if we’ll only let them have it. 

Gas-powered power stations are now twice as efficient as they were 18 years ago, while the safety record of nuclear power in Western Europe is second to none. We ought to be investing in these, not ridiculous and highly inefficient wind farms that are only being built because of the huge government subsidies and guaranteed profits that are being offered.

People have a right to know the truth, but it’s so difficult to break the strangle-hold the global warming gang have on the debate. David Bellamy can’t get on television and I can’t even get a ten-minute meeting with the controller of Radio 4. 

Maybe that doesn’t matter, maybe our time has passed. But what does matter is that the view held by the so-called climate change sceptics must be heard too.

We’re not going to hell in a handcart because of some tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but hell is certainly where we’ll end up if we insist on spending hundreds of billions of unaffordable pounds trying to correct a problem that is grossly over-stated.

It’s time to get back to the real science and the real sums. It’s time to get back to the future which, if we adopt the right policies, will be brighter than we can yet imagine.

 

source
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html#comments

American Senator Jim Inhofe confronted by catastrophist environmentalists.

http://www.youtube.com/jiminhofepressoffice

Simple Question: If the science is settled why is this happening? 

Answer : Because it's not about the science it's about Money, Power and Politics.

The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory

By Mark Musser February 15, 2011


One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Guenther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi.[i]  In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe's (1749-1832) Faustian religious play entitled "Dance with the Devil."  While a few scientists since the late 1800's had contemplated the possibility of minor global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe's dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis.  The book outlines many looming environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming.  Guenther Schwab's very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer.  By the early 1970's, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies. 

At one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   Assuming the planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the continuing rise of carbon dioxide that "will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth.  This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw.  As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded."

Schwab had been a strong nature lover since boyhood, and by the 1920's he became very active in the emerging environmental movement in Austria.  Later, he joined the Nazi Party.  While this may sound odd to many who have bought into the Marxian propaganda over the years that the Nazis were right wing capitalistic extremists, greens who signed up for the Nazi Party were actually very typical of the day.  The most widelyrepresented group of people in the Nazi Party was the greens, and Guenther Schwab was just one of among many.  The greens' interest in lonely places found a solitary niche in the singleness of Adolf Hitler, who ruled the Third Reich from his spectacular mountain compound, high in the Bavarian Alps called theBerghof.  In English, this could easily be translated as Mountain Home, Bavaria.

After the war in the 1950's, Guenther Schwab's brand of environmentalism also played afundamental role in the development of the green anti-nuclear movement in West Germany.  The dropping of the atom bomb and the nuclear fallout of the Cold War helped to globalize the greens into an apocalyptic 'peace' movement with Guenther Schwab being one of its original spokesmen.  The unprecedented destruction in Germany brought on by industrialized warfare never before seen in the history of the world only served to radicalize the German greens into an apocalyptic movement.   Their hatred toward global capitalism became even more vitriolic precisely because the capitalists were now in charge of a dangerous nuclear arsenal that threatened the entire planet. 

Later, Guenther Schwab joined the advisory panel of "The Society of Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavior Research."  Schwab was especially concerned with the burgeoning population explosion of the Third World that he was sure would eventually overrun Europe.  By advocating modern racial science based on genetics, Schwab believed that the population bomb, together with its associated environmental degradation, could be averted.  Here, Schwab shows his basic commitment to the Nazi SS doctrine of 'blood and soil' -- an explosive concoction of eugenics and environmentalism loaded with eco-imperialistic ambitions that had devastating consequences on the Eastern Front in World War II.  

The success of Schwab's book helped him to establish an international environmental organization called "The World League for the Defense of Life."  Not surprisingly, Werner Haverbeck, former Hitler Youth member and Nazi environmental leader of the Reich's League for Folk National Character and Landscape, later became the chairman of Schwab's organization.  In 1973, Haverbeck blamed the environmental crisis in Germany on American capitalism.  It was an unnatural colonial import that had infected Germany like a deadly foreign body. 

Both Schwab's organization and Haverbeck were also instrumental in establishing the German Green Party in 1980.  Such embarrassing facts were later managed with a little housecleaningand lots of cosmetics, which was further buoyed by characterizing such greens as extreme 'right wing' ecologists -- a counterintuitive label that continues to misdirect and plague all environmental studies of the Third Reich.  Worst of all is that Haverbeck's wife is also a Holocaust denier.

Long before Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," green Nazi Guenther Schwab played a large role in catalyzing the frightening theory of global warming.  With no small thanks to Schwab, the Great Tribulation of Global Warming was ushered into the modern consciousness behind the collapse of the Millennial 1,000 year Third Reich.  There is therefore a swastika in the German woods that needs to be closely watched here. 

Mark Musser is the author of "Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust" and a commentary on the warning passages in the book of Hebrews called "Wrath or Rest: Saints in the Hands of an Angry God."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_nazi_origins_of_apocalypti.html