Global Warming - The Lie's topics - tribe.net

Soylent Green is People!

2008-04-03T22:08:28Z

It's a hoax!! And YOU are the sucker.

LOL. Sucker.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 2 replies

Weather Channel Founder to Sue Al Gore

2008-03-31T09:08:37Z

Weather Channel Founder to Sue Al Gore for Fraud
By Fox News
Mar 14, 2008 - 8:37:05 PM

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all. John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact," he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 1 reply

CO2 Facts

2008-03-28T12:40:05Z

Two gases make up the bulk of the earth's atmosphere: nitrogen (), which comprises 78% of the atmosphere, and oxygen (), which accounts for 21%. Various trace gases make up the remainder.
This would mean that carbon dioxide is still and should always be a trace gas!

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state. It is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 383 ppm by volume in the Earth's atmosphere, although this varies both by location and time.
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared.

Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis. This is to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material for plant growth. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle.
Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels or vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Inorganic carbon dioxide is output by volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs.

Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14×1018 kg, so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes).
Its concentration varies seasonally now although human activity is causing CO2 to increase because the oceans dissolve the gas CO2 should remain a trace gas in our atmosphere.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Climate facts to warm to

2008-03-28T12:30:29Z

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
from The Australian

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

2008 - Coldest Winter Since 2001

2008-03-15T15:14:39Z

NOAA: Coldest Winter Since 2001
By NOAA
Mar 13, 2008 - 11:52:18 PM

The global warming army isn't going to like this. The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008, was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

With higher-than-average temperatures in the Northeast and South, the contiguous U.S. winter temperature-related energy demand was approximately 1.7 percent lower than average, based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index

U.S. Winter Precipitation Highlights
Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.

During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.

Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.

Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.

Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.Y., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, VT., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.

While some areas of the Southeast were wetter than average during the winter, overall precipitation for the region was near average. At the end of February, two-thirds of the Southeast remained in some stage of drought, with more than 25 percent in extreme-to- exceptional drought.

Drought conditions intensified in Texas with areas experiencing drought almost doubling from 25 percent at the end of January to 45 percent at the end of February.

Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to a boreal winter and February temperature that were the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.

While analyses of the causes of the severe winter storms in southern China continues, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory scientists are focusing on the presence of unusually strong, persistent high pressure over Eastern Europe, combined with low pressure over Southwest Asia. This pattern directed a series of storms across the region, while northerly low level flow introduced cold air from Mongolia. Unusually high water temperatures in the China Sea may have triggered available moisture that enhanced the severity of these storms.

Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

While there has been little trend in snow cover extent during the winter season since records began in the late 1960s, spring snow cover extent has been sharply lower in the past two decades as global temperatures have increased.

February Temperature Highlights
February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Get Involved

2008-03-02T22:31:40Z

Get Involved
From extended droughts in the south to increasingly large wild fires in the west, we are experiencing the effects of global warming. If we are to protect our planet for future generations we must make the right choices now. We can either stand up for what is right - our health, humanity, our planet, or we can sit by and watch while decisions are made that threaten our world and our lives.

Congress has the power to change the future, and YOU have the power to change Congress. Join us. Help put Congress on the Hot Seat.

Here's how to get started:

Take Action: Tell Congress to act now by supporting The Safe Climate Act!

Join the Hot Seat Activist Program: When ordinary people act together, extraordinary things can happen. By acting now and by acting boldly we can kick global warming to the curb. Join us! From collecting postcards, to writing letters, to calling your Congressperson, or rallying at their office, you can help ignite an energy revolution.

Spread the Word: It will take all of us to get Congress' full attention. Tell your friends, family, and coworkers about this campaign, and get them involved too!

Donate: Support our efforts and help us mobilize the nation. You can help us put Congress on the Hot Seat and put a stop to global warming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Downloadable Materials
Help educate the public and put Congress on the Hot Seat! Here are some materials that you can download, print, copy and distribute in your community.

1. Help us send thousands of postcards to Congress.

Sign up to be a postcard collector.
Watch this video for tips. It just takes a minute.
Download postcards here, print them, and then collect signatures at your church, community event, work or local farmer's market - just ask everyone!
Send the postcards to 75 Arkansas Street, San Francisco, CA 94107-2434, or fax them to (415) 255-9201. We'll include them in a bulk delivery event to Congress.
Download the postcard (requires PDF Viewer)

So far, we've collected 33,784 postcards. Help us get all the way to 50,000!

2. Educate the public.

Download a Project Hot Seat brochure to distribute in your community. This is an important way to help educate the public about the facts on global warming, and how they can get involved in efforts to create climate champions in Congress. Just download, print, and copy. You can pass them out on the street, at a club meeting, community center - any place that's appropriate.

3. Reach out and call Congress. Recruit people to call too!

Download a phone call flyer, copy, and distribute it in any public space, put it on car windshields, get creative! Recruit friends, family, coworkers and the public at large to call Congress and urge them to pass strong global warming solutions. We need steep reductions in global warming pollution, and it's going to take every one of us to put Congress in the Hot Seat!

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 1 reply

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRASSS MONKEYS

2008-02-12T22:36:23Z

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

The Greatest Scandal in Modern History of Science

2008-01-11T13:48:51Z

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Here comes the cold.

2008-01-10T16:22:32Z

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

19,000 scientists sign against AGW

2008-01-10T16:20:15Z

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Russian wisdom

2008-01-08T22:18:34Z

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 1 reply

REQUEST TO THE IPCC

2007-12-18T19:11:21Z

REQUEST TO THE IPCC
Syun Akasofu [sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu] International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks

We encounter scientific terms, such as climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide a few times every day in newspapers, radio broadcasts, TV news, as well as in conversations among people. It must be the first time in the history of science that a specific scientific field has gotten so much attention from the public. As a scientist, I am pleased about the public's interest in science. Unfortunately, however, I am afraid that this great interest by the public in climatology is largely the result of a proliferating number of confusing stories in the media that are based on misinterpreted information about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.
If the IPCC wants to represent this particular scientific field to the world, they are responsible for rectifying the great confusion and misinterpretation of scientific facts in the mind of the public.

Some of the items that need clarification and action are:

1. Define climate change, global warming, manmade greenhouse effect, and ask the public to stop the synonymous use of these terms. (Those who use these terms synonymously do not know what they are talking about.)

2. Ask the mass media to stop using scenes of large blocks of ice falling off the terminus of a glacier and of the spring break-up in the Arctic as supposedly due to the manmade greenhouse effect. (Glaciers are 'rivers of ice', so that calving is natural, and spring break-up is a normal, annual event; both have been going on from the geological time.)

3. Ask the mass medial to stop using collapsing houses built on permafrost (frozen ground) as a result of the manmade greenhouse effect. (Their collapse is due to improper construction that allows the house heat to melt the permafrost underneath the structure.)

4. Tell that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is not a single plate of ice. (The area covered by sea ice changes considerably because of winds and ocean currents, not just by melting.)

5. Call attention to the fact that anomalous, extreme, and unusual weather phenomena are not directly related to the manmade greenhouse effect. (The manmade greenhouse effect is represented by a slow increase of temperature at the rate of 0.6°C/per 100 years.)

6. Acknowledge that the use of the so-called "hockey stick" figure in the 2001 Summary Report for Policy Makers was not appropriate. (It shows a sudden increase of temperature around 1900 after a slow decrease for 900 years, giving the impression of 'abrupt climate change'.)

7. Acknowledge that the present warming trend is not unusual or abnormal in the light of past temperature changes. (There were many warmer periods than the present one, which lasted hundreds of years during the present interglacial period that began 10,000 years ago.)

8. Distinguish between the manmade greenhouse effect and a great variety of manmade environmental destructions, which are often mentioned by greenhouse advocates in the same breath. (The latter includes results from the over-harvesting of forests and fish, pollution, extinction of some species.)

9. Stop media reports telling that the sea level has already increased several meters during the last 50 years. (According to the 2007 IPCC Report, the rising rate is 1.8mm/yer, so that the sea level increased 9 cm during the last 50 years.)

10. Scientists who study satellite data should not use the term "unprecedented changes". (They do not have satellite data before the 1970s and cannot tell if any of the changes are "unprecedented", even those that occurred in the 1930s or 1940s, not having comparable data.)

11. Encourage the mass media not to report only on sensational scientific findings that may represent the opinion of only one scientist or a few. (Reporters who are not familiar with arctic phenomena tend to report normal features as anomalous.)

12. Remind scientists to be careful about hinting at possible disaster scenarios resulting from the greenhouse effect of CO2 without solid scientific bases.

I believe these are reasonable requests, over which no debate is needed. The public is alarmed and thus concerned about climate change largely because they are confused by the above and other misinformation and misunderstanding, not because they are particularly interested in climatology. People bring up these and many other misunderstood issues when I discuss the present warming trend with the public. I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.
Even if the IPCC is not directly responsible for the present confusion, they should take the necessary responsible action to help rectify the situation.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Founding Director
International Arctic Research Center
P.O. Box 757340 Fairbanks,
AK 99775-7340, USA
e-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

RECs: Decreasing your carbon footprint on the cheap?

2007-12-16T00:43:43Z

Are Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) a valuable tool for encouraging the development of alternative energy projects--like wind farms--or are they the Pet Rocks of the green energy movement? My answer is an unequivocal yes!

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificates

My understanding of the Wikipedia article is that if I'm a wind farm owner, I can sell directly to electrical utilities, where the electricity that I produce is comingled with electricity from other sources. Then, in a completely separate transaction, I can sell RECs to corporations and government agencies who want to make unrealistic claims about their low 'carbon footprints'.

My relatively small income from this second source could make a marginal site for a second wind farm look more attractive. In that sense, the RECs may be doing some good in the long term.

The problem is that there is a nearly complete decoupling between the electricity that I'm pumping into the grid, and the sale of the RECs. (The main restriction is that I can't sell RECs for more electricity than I actually produce.) If I had zero customers for my RECs, I'd still be selling electricity to the utility company. Although the prices of RECs are highly variable, they are still relatively low, compared with the actual production costs for green energy.

The corporations are already getting electricity from their utility companies. So what are they actually getting when they buy RECs? PR points.

Here's a bittersweet story in BusinessWeek, about an environmentalist, who is trying to make a difference in the corporate world, and who is having second thoughts about RECs.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

2007-12-15T00:54:06Z

SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters (see under “Links” on this website).

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Marketing global warming

2007-12-15T00:50:52Z

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6745

In its First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1991 the IPCC reported the alarming forecasts from the climate models that had led to its formation but said of 20th century warming, “A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.”

Then the IPCC changed their figures and 'omitted' the reference to previous warmer periods. How (in)convenient!

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Freezing Temperatures Break 90 Year Record

2007-12-15T00:47:51Z

Freezing Temperatures Break 90 Year Record - Whoops, what happened to global warming...
By Alexandre Aguiar / MetSul Weather Center (Brazil)
Nov 17, 2007 - 12:26:47 PM

Buenos Aires - Latin America was rocked this week by a four-word sentence. During a summit in Chile King Juan Carlos of Spain told the president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez to shut up: "Por qué no te callas" (Why do you not shut up?). Someone must tell Al Gore the same or invite him to visit this corner of the world.

It is a never ending winter here in South America. “What a hell is happening this year with a seven-month winter”, asked a famous TV journalist about the unusual climatic winter of 2007 that began with fury in May and still persist in November. Buenos Aires recorded this Thursday (November 15th) the lowest temperature for the month of November in 90 years. Temperature in the Downtown weather station reached 2.5C. Since records began more than a century ago, only two days had colder lows in November. It was in 1914 (1.6) and 1917 (2.4). And ninety years ago the urban heat island effect was much less pronounced than nowadays, what turns the temperature observed today remarkable.

The much colder than usual weather was not confined to Argentina. This Thursday had near-freezing temperatures and frost in Uruguay. Weather stations recorded 1.5ºC in Trinidad; 1.8ºC in Durazno; 2.4ºC in Tacuarembó; 3ºC in Artigas; 3.2ºC in Melo and Florida; 3.8ºC in Treinta y Tres; 4.1ºC in Paso de los Toros; 4.6ºC in Rivera and 4.8ºC em San José.

In the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil temperatures fell to 2.3ºC degrees in several towns near the border with Uruguay on Thursday. Wind and cloud cover prevented lower temperatures in the higher altitudes, but earlier in the week several towns in the Sierras region recorded temperatures near zero Celsius and frost. In Sao Joaquim, the low was 1.6 below zero with moderate frost on Monday (November 12th).

Frequent cold air incursions are prompting a very stormy spring in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. More than one hundred towns declared emergency due to severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in recent weeks. One man died. Some towns experienced almost complete destruction twice in just ten days.

Further south, the problem is the excessive ice. The Brazilian Base Comandante Ferraz (file image above) in Antarctica is rationing water. Never in the last twenty years the weather was so cold and snowy this time of the year in the Brazilian post in the South Pole. The nearby lakes that provide water to the base are frozen since September. The heliport that allows the arrival of food and bottled water by air is under three meters of snow. Water for human consumption is limited to the fifty Brazilian researchers in the region and the situations turns more dangerous each day. So, por qué no te callas Al Gore?

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 1 reply

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

2007-12-15T00:45:55Z

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Monday, December 10, 2007 9:55 AM

By: Philip V. Brennan

As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.

"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surfaceand thus the climate.

"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Climate mechanics.

2007-12-08T18:09:27Z

Check out these great explanations of the flaws in the reasoning of CO2 and AGW.

http://www.happs.com.au/pages/research.html#anchor

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

GW, is CO2 the cause?

2007-12-03T11:27:21Z

4 part Youtube video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners

2007-11-25T11:15:23Z

Do have a look at the links on the bottom of this.....

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

FORUM: Warming not man-made

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071125/COMMENTARY/111250003/1012

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Arctic Ocean Circulation Reversal

2007-11-17T22:34:02Z

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Reversal - Evidence Against So-Called Global Warming
By Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
Nov 14, 2007 - 12:09:15 PM

PASADENA, Calif. - A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends not associated with so-called global warming.

The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

Grace monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth's gravity field caused primarily by the movement of water in Earth's land, ocean, ice and atmosphere reservoirs. As such it can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. In contrast, the pressure gauges installed on the sea floor in 2005-2006 directly measured water pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Gauge data were remotely recovered during the first year of the study.

"The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and Grace data demonstrates Grace's potential for tracking world ocean circulation," said study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado, Boulder.

"Satellite altimeters, such as NASA's Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can't be used at Earth's poles due to ice cover," said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation."

Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ .

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Oceans Main Source of Carbon Release

2007-11-17T22:27:45Z

NASA’s SeaWiFS Project - Oceans Main Source of Carbon Release
By ISIS News
Nov 11, 2007 - 10:06:32 AM

Do oceans remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or contribute to it? The answer is crucial for climate change. NASA’s SeaWiFS project (Sea-viewing Wide Field-of View Sensor)(SeaWiFS) has been watching the oceans twenty-four hours a day every day since September 1997. Evidence shows oceans major source of carbon.

It provides quantitative data on the biological state of the global oceans through remote color sensing. The color in most of the world’s oceans varies with the concentration of chlorophyll and other plant pigments contained in the phytoplankton, the greater the concentration of plant pigments, the greener the water. As an orbiting sensor can view every square kilometre of cloud-free ocean every 48 hours, satellite-acquired ocean color data are valuable for determining the abundance of ocean life and to assess the ocean’s role in climate change.

One big question the SeaWiFS project wants to answer is whether the oceans are a carbon source that adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or a carbon sink that removes it from the atmosphere, which is crucial to monitoring climate change and taking appropriate action. The oceans not only contain 97 percent of all the water on earth, they are also the biggest carbon reservoir, and hence a major player in climate and climate change (Oceans and climate change, this series).

Passive and active carbon exchanges

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can dissolve in water, and the colder and more turbulent regions of the oceans tend to absorb carbon dioxide, while the warmer and less turbulent regions release it, carbon dioxide being less soluble in warm water than in cold water. In the early 1990s, the oceans were thought to be a net carbon sink, with the North Atlantic Ocean accounting for 60 percent of the carbon dioxide absorbed by the world’s oceans, which amounted to about 2 Gt a year.

The passive uptake and release of carbon dioxide is not as important, however, as the active uptake of carbon dioxide by the phytoplankton in photosynthesis and its active release in respiration by the whole community of marine organisms, which amount to about 100 Gt a year each way (Oceans and climate change, this series).

Phytoplankton consists of microscopic green algae that grow at prodigious rates in the surface layers of the oceans, feeding an enormous marine food web that has nine times the biomass of the terrestrial food web. A thriving phytoplankton population would tend to remove more carbon dioxide through photosynthesis than is returned through respiration by the entire community (phytoplankton plus zooplankton and other organisms living in the surface layers), and the ocean works as an effective carbon sink. Conversely, if respiration of the community were to exceed photosynthesis, more carbon dioxide would be generated than is fixed, and the ocean becomes a carbon source.

Monitoring how well the ocean’s plankton is doing is therefore very important for predicting climate and climate change

North East Atlantic a carbon source

Scientists at several Spanish universities used data from nine Spanish cruises conducted between 1991-2000 in the subtropical NE Atlantic to calculate gross primary production (photosynthesis) and respiration. They found that two-thirds of the 33 stations investigated had respiration rate greater than photosynthesis. That meant the phytoplankton was not fixing carbon dioxide fast enough, and the oceans, or at least the northeast Atlantic Ocean could be a carbon source instead of a carbon sink.

In photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are combined to make sugar (carbohydrates) with the evolution of oxygen; conversely, oxygen is consumed to oxidise sugars back to carbon dioxide and water in respiration. So a convenient way to estimate the rates of photosynthesis and respiration is to measure the oxygen produced (in the light) and consumed (in the dark).

The researchers found that the average photosynthesis over all the marine stations in northeast Atlantic was 2 600 + 271 mg O2/m2/day, while the average community respiration was 3 821 + 276 mg O2/m2/day. Clearly, respiration rate was far in excess of photosynthesis. Additional evidence indicated that over the period of a year, respiration still exceeded gross production.

The study concentrated on the water column from a depth at which one percent of the sunlight has penetrated up to the surface with full sunlight, and did not include the respiration of organisms living at greater depths, where no photosynthesis could take place. If that were included, the deficit in gross production would be even bigger. The scientists estimated that 0.5 Gt of carbon is released per year just by the plankton community covering the 5.26 million square kilometres of the subtropical NE Atlantic.

Other evidence has come to light since indicating that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change are undermining the conditions of growth for phytoplankton, which has the potential to wipe out the marine biota at its very basis and to aggravate climate change (Shutting down the oceans, this series).

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Chaotic world of climate truth

2007-11-10T21:35:01Z

Chaotic world of climate truth

VIEWPOINT
By Mike Hulme
Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

As activists organised by the group Stop Climate Chaos gather in London to demand action, one of Britain's top climate scientists says the language of chaos and catastrophe has got out of hand.

Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change.

But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention.

The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

It seems that we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.

It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.

Boarding the bandwagon

Some recent examples of the catastrophists include Tony Blair, who a few weeks back warned in an open letter to EU head of states: "We have a window of only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing a catastrophic tipping point."

Today, a mass demonstration in Trafalgar Square will protest, aiming to "stop climate chaos" - the name for a coalition of environmental activists and faith-based organisations.

The BBC broadcast in May its Climate Chaos season of programmes. There is even a publicly-funded science research project called Rapid.

Scenarios of climate change are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons

Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions?

James Lovelock's book The Revenge of Gaia takes this discourse to its logical endpoint - the end of human civilisation itself.

What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists?

I believe there are three factors now at work.

First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.

Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.

Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity.

Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.

The Exeter conference of February 2005 on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" served the government's purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of "climate change is worse than we thought" news reporting and group-think.

By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.

Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets.

It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more "big push" of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively.

We need to take a deep breath and pause.

Fear and terror

The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year's global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?

The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change.

The language of politicians can be as strong as that of campaigners
This has been seen in other areas of public health risk. Empirical work in relation to climate change communication and public perception shows that it operates here too.

Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions.

We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway.

The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change.

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

Mike Hulme is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Some film to view...

2007-11-10T21:29:34Z

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

An Inconvenient Truth... Or Convenient Fiction
Pt 1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6811621718806539208
Pt 2. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8680553475303217901

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

The news.

2007-11-10T09:18:35Z

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?324d8c29-96d0-4a8c-91bf-7736fd0a5f63
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-cooling.html
http://schmoontherun.blogspot.com/2007/07/uk-floods-climate-change-eco-cons.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_science_to_fit_the_gl.html
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/59075/The-Ugly-Un-American:-Week-6.htm
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-6-skept.html
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=070909
http://www.syl.com/travel/solaractivityinfluenceonouratmosphere.html
http://ksvn.blogspot.com/2007/11/science-faqs-on-global-warming.html
p://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/hurricane-season-2007-is-near-record-low-of-1977/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/helio-la-nina-and-bad-winters-now-nuts/
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c9
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/7/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

The Death of Manmade Global Warming Theory

2007-11-10T08:17:16Z

The Death of Manmade Global Warming Theory
By Daniel A Klein, Mandeep J Gupta, Philip Cooper, Arne FR Jansson, Journal of Geoclimatic Studies
Nov 8, 2007 - 9:44:38 AM

These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly implications - from being made by the world's governments. But we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear.

We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work. We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish.

Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?
Journal of Geoclimatic Studies (2007) 13:3. 223-231
http://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm

Daniel A Klein*, Mandeep J Gupta*, Philip Cooper**, Arne FR Jansson**.
*Department of Climatology, University of Arizona;
**Department of Atmospheric Physics, Göteborgs Universitet (University of Gothenburg, Sweden.)

Received: 18 February 2007 / Accepted: 9th August 2007 / Published online: 3rd November 2007

Abstract
It is now well-established that rising global temperatures are largely the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The "consensus" position attributes the increase in atmospheric CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuels by industrial processes. This is the mechanism which underpins the theory of manmade global warming.

Our data demonstrate that those who subscribe to the consensus theory have overlooked the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions. While a small part of the rise in emissions is attributable to industrial activity, it is greatly outweighed (by >300 times) by rising volumes of CO2 produced by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Moreover, the bacterial emissions, unlike industrial CO2, precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years.

This paper also posits a mechanism for the increase in bacterial CO2 emissions. A series of natural algal blooms, beginning in the late 19th Century, have caused mass mortality among the bacteria's major predators: brachiopod molluscs of the genus Tetrarhynchia. These periods of algal bloom, as the palaeontological record shows, have been occurring for over three million years, and are always accompanied by a major increase in carbon dioxide emissions, as a result of the multiplication of bacteria when predator pressure is reduced. They generally last for 150-200 years. If the current episode is consistent with this record, we should expect carbon dioxide emissions to peak between now and mid-century, then return to background levels. Our data suggest that current concerns about manmade global warming are unfounded.

Keywords: global warming, carbon dioxide, eubacteria, Tetrarhynchia, benthic, numerical modelling.

Introduction
Manmade global warming theory could fairly be described as the dominant scientific concern of our age. A huge volume (>10,000) of papers and expert reports warns of impending catastrophe if the consumption of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions of carbon dioxide are not curbed. This theory now has a major influence on policy among most of the governments of the developed world, and an increasing number of governments in the developing world. The cost of current plans to combat this perceived problem is likely by the end of the 21st Century to outweigh the combined costs of global spending on transport and health (Amstel and Barnes, 2006).

The proposed mechanism for radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide emissions is straightforward. Rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do not impede shortwave solar radiation from reaching the earth's surface, but they do prevent the reflection of some long-wave radiation from the earth's surface back into space. The net effect is atmospheric warming (positive radiative forcing), as incoming heat exceeds reflected heat.

This process is well-established. The question, however, centres on the source of the carbon dioxide emissions required to cause the current warming trend. The "consensus" theory suffers from a major and fundamental flaw: the volume of carbon dioxide required to cause the current increase in atmospheric concentrations and the resultant rise in global temperature (0.7°C over the pre-industrial mean) is two orders of magnitude greater than the total volume of manmade emissions (Wu, 2003).

Over the past 140 years, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from ? 280ppmv to 379ppmv (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a). Total emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in this period can account for a rise of only 0.3-0.4ppmv - in other words, only one third of one per cent of the total increase (Wu, 2003). This inconvenient truth is well-known among climate scientists, and the simple arithmetic behind Wu's analysis has yet to be challenged, though four years have elapsed since it was first published. Instead, it is simply ignored or overlooked by all those who subscribe to the "consensus" position. A comprehensive analysis of the assessment reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that this - the most fundamental problem with the manmade global warming model - has not been acknowledged by the panel, let alone addressed (Klein and Gupta, 2006). When we have challenged prominent climate scientists who subscribe to the climate change "consensus", our concerns are met with evasion and in some cases aggression. Discussion of this issue has been all but prohibited by the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals. This journal is a courageous exception, but it too has come under great pressure not to raise the issue. There is, we conclude, simply too much at stake.

If carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are far too small to have caused the current rise in atmospheric concentrations, there must be another, and much greater, source. Having examined all the possible terrestrial sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we found that only one had the potential to be commensurate with the volume of additions to atmospheric CO2 required to account for a rise of 99ppmv.

The metabolic pathway of saprotrophic eubacteria is identical to that described by the Kattweizel-Gruhe Cycle for multicellular organisms (Rosetti and Hirsch, 1966). The principal respiratory product is carbon dioxide. But the total mass of benthic bacteria outweighs the mass of all other organisms using the Kattweizel-Gruhe Cycle by approximately 30:1 (Mitsui et al, 1998). Significant fluctuations in benthic eubacterial populations are therefore likely to cause far greater impacts on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than all other ecosystem effects.

The palaeontological record shows that, from the early Pliocene onwards, benthic bacterial communities have undergone violent fluctuations in mass (Tibbold, 1996). The relationship with algal blooms, whose breakdown product (difluoroethylene sulphate) is toxic to the primary eubacterial predators - Tetrarhynchia brachiopods - is also well-known (Dillon, 1998; Wyn Jones and Torres, 2001). We set out to test the hypothesis that fluctuating volumes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere result from fluctuating populations of benthic eubacteria. Not only did we discover that the volume of carbon dioxide produced by the bacteria over the past 140 years precisely matches the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, our data also show that trends in bacterial population precisely match changes in atmospheric concentrations over that period. We therefore propose the hypothesis that "manmade global warming" is actually the product of changing population patterns among benthic bacteria. [...]

Discussion

It was not our intention in researching this issue to disprove manmade global warming theory. We have received no funds, directly or indirectly, from fossil fuel companies and have no personal interest in the outcome of the debate. We simply noticed an anomaly in the figures used by those who accept the "consensus" position on climate change and sought to investigate it. But the findings presented in this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory or to the thousands of climate scientists who have overlooked - sometimes, we fear, deliberately - the anomaly. We have found a near-perfect match between the levels of carbon dioxide produced by benthic eubacteria and recent global temperature records. By contrast we note what must be obvious to all those who have studied the figures with an open mind: a very poor match between carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and recent global temperature records.

Moreover we note that there is no possible mechanism by which industrial emissions could have caused the recent temperature increase, as they are two orders of magnitude too small to have exerted an effect of this size. We have no choice but to conclude that the recent increase in global temperatures, which has caused so much disquiet among policy makers, bears no relation to industrial emissions, but is in fact a natural phenomenom.

These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly implications - from being made by the world's governments. But we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work.

We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish.

FULL PAPER at http://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 3 replies

‘Greatest Scam in History’

2007-11-09T23:48:17Z

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
By Noel Sheppard - News Busters
Nov 8, 2007 - 10:15:51 AM

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice? "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming." (John Coleman, Founder of Weather Channel)

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

'Sun Major Influence on Earth's Climate'

2007-11-01T14:12:59Z

Scientists say 'Sun Major Influence on Earth's Climate'
By UPI
Oct 23, 2007 - 6:30:21 PM

The Sun lies at the heart of our solar system, but it still holds back many secrets from science. Unlocking these mysteries could shed light on puzzling activity seen in other stars and even safeguard lives.

An explosive star

The Sun is literally bursting with energy, violently exploding with solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other kinds of eruptions up to hundreds of times per year. The number of explosions and Sunspots the Sun experiences tends to rise and fall in a roughly 11-year-long "solar cycle," the roots of which remain uncertain.

Astrophysicists generally agree the solar cycle is driven by the solar dynamo—the flowing, electrically charged gas within the Sun that generates its magnetic field—and that magnetic fluctuations trigger solar explosions. "But which of the many dynamo models is right is uncertain," said solar physicist Paul Charbonneau of the University of Montreal.

Shedding light on the solar dynamo could help predict when solar explosions happen, "which can endanger astronauts and satellites in space and damage power lines on Earth," Charbonneau said. But whether or not scientists can ever predict the solar cycle remains unknown—some claim it is physically impossible to predict.

The super-hot corona

Just as a fire feels warmer the closer one gets to it, so is the core of the Sun hotter than its surface. Mysteriously, however, the corona—the Sun's atmosphere—is also far hotter than its surface.

The Sun's surface is roughly 5,500 degrees Celsius. The corona, on the other hand, is one to three million degrees C or more.

Why the corona is super-hot is hotly debated. Some researchers suggest the Sun's magnetic fields heat the corona, while others propose that waves from the Sun do. "I wouldn't be surprised if these mechanisms are at work together. They're not mutually exclusive," said Bernhard Fleck, project scientist for the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft.

The Maunder Minimum

Oddly, the solar cycle once seemed to go on vacation for roughly 70 years. Only 50 Sunspots were seen during this Maunder Minimum between 1645 to 1715, as opposed to the expected 40,000 to 50,000.

Research does suggest that similar phases of suppressed activity have occurred in the past 10,000 years, with the Sun in such "quiet" modes about 15 percent of the time, Charbonneau said. Why these occur remains unclear, although there are models of the Sun that suggest the solar dynamo can rev solar cycles up or down.

Also, the Maunder Minimum coincided in part with the Little Ice Age, leading to debates over whether or not the Sun was the cause of that past climatic shift or the current one the world is undergoing. "The agreement of the majority of the scientists is the Sun was the major influence on Earth's climate.

Erratic siblings

Most stars like the Sun actually behave more erratically than our Sun. "More than half of Sun-like stars either have cycles that are slowly increasing or decreasing in how active they are over time instead of remaining steady, or they're completely irregular," said solar physicist Karel Schrijver at Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif. "We don't really know why."

NASA's upcoming Solar Dynamic Observatory spacecraft could shed light on the inner workings of the Sun and therefore its siblings, Schrijver said, "and therefore shed light on these mysteries."

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 1 reply

There is NO prevention

2007-11-01T12:14:29Z

Current Warming Trend Indicates Rising Sea Levels

by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media

As explicitly laid out in my book 'Global Warming: A Convenient Disguise', we see the true science of today's warming trend coming into fruition. What most of you did not know is the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) knew all along the current warming trend "is not preventable".

In fact, the IPCC specifically outlines future "mass migration" as imminent. An estimated 46 million people per year who live on coastal areas are currently at risk of flooding from storm surges. Climate change will exacerbate these problems, leading to potential impacts on ecosystems and human coastal infrastructure. Large numbers of people also are potentially affected by sea-level rise-for example, tens of millions of people in Bangladesh would be displaced by a 1 millimeter sea level increase (the top of the range of IPCC Working Group I estimates for 2100) in the absence of adaptation measures.

The myth of the 1988 made up name 'global warming' is now having a horrible backlash as a result of misleading lies and deception. Very few people now trust all the dogma coming from the well organized self-centered environmentalist who latched on to the global warming cabal. The Al Gore movement has created a very dangerous "cry wolf" scenario with serious consequences at hand.

Al Gore and the global warming army used the exact same playbook as the Bush regime. Instead of the litany of lies as presented by the Bush regime such as: "You are either with me or with the terrorist; 9/11 = Iraq = weapons of mass destruction." ------- The Al Gore regime uses: "you are either with me or you are with the polluters; the scientific debate is over; we must fight the evil doers and save the Polar Bears".

Needless to say the world has witnessed the implosion of the Bush regime from the weight of their deception, trickery, and lies. But what about the Gore regime? Well let's take a closer look and see how their "playbook" is working out----------

A High Court Judge Rules Against Former US Vice President Al Gore's Movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Well I guess we can see where this is going. Looks pretty much like the Bush regimes' Iraq = 9/11 shameful outcome.

High court judge Justice Burton ruled against Al Gore's global warming hyped film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The most striking slap-down was his ruling that Gore's Hollywood docu-drama provided "no evidence of anthropogenic warming". The word "anthropogenic" is nothing but a legal scientific term meaning "human caused".

But it didn't stop there. Judge Burton had a long list of descriptive adjectives to describe Gore's false statements and "intent" to project as science fact. What we found was nothing more than "science fiction". In Burton's own descriptive words. Judge Burton's ruling: "no evidence, one-sided, exaggeration, very unlikely, cannot be established, (the facts) plainly does not support Mr Gore's description." OUCH---- that can't feel good.

But the most telling of Burton's ruling statement as the result of legal adjudication was this: "It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors." Other factors indeed---such as the Sun.

Just as with the Bush regime's mis-steps with Iraq causing the United States to lose its posture of integrity throughout the world because of the deception, lies, and cover-ups; the Gore 'global warming' cabal has fallen into the same pattern. The world is now quickly discovering the falsehoods, deception, and lies brought forward by the Gore regime regarding the made up name 'global warming'. But in this lays a cruel, dangerous, and deadly outcome.

As with the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of US troops who have been killed all based on a LIE, the same will happen to whole communities around the world because they were sold a pack of lies; now they no longer believe a word any form of government official will say when warning about rising sea levels. How Bush or Gore can live with themselves is beyond my comprehension.-----

As stated by the IPCC themselves, a growing number of extremely large cities are located in coastal areas, which means that large amounts of infrastructure may be affected. Although annual protection costs for many nations are relatively modest-about 0.1% of gross domestic product (GDP)-the average annual costs to many small island states total several percent of GDP. For some island nations, the high cost of providing storm-surge protection would make it essentially infeasible, especially given the limited availability of capital for investment.

Beaches, dunes, estuaries, and coastal wetlands adapt naturally and dynamically to changes in prevailing winds and seas, as well as sea-level changes; in areas where infrastructure development is not extensive, planned retreat and accommodation to changes may be possible. It also may be possible to rebuild or relocate capital assets at the end of their design life.

In other areas, however, accommodation and planned retreat are not viable options, and protection using hard structures (e.g., dikes, levees, floodwalls, and barriers) and soft structures (e.g., beach nourishment, dune restoration, and wetland creation) will be necessary. Factors that limit the implementation of these options include inadequate financial resources, limited institutional and technological capability, and shortages of trained personnel.

In most regions, current coastal management and planning frameworks do not take account of the vulnerability of key systems to changes in climate and sea level or long lead times for implementation of many adaptation measures. Inappropriate policies encourage development in impact-prone areas. Given increasing population density in coastal zones, long lead times for implementation of many adaptation measures, and institutional, financial, and technological limitations (particularly in many developing countries), coastal systems should be considered vulnerable to changes in climate.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 0 replies

Will the sun cool us?

2007-10-24T22:41:33Z

Will the sun cool us?
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, January 12, 2007

The science is settled" on climate change, say most scientists in the field. They believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the globe to dangerous levels and that, in the coming decades, steadily increasing temperatures will melt the polar ice caps and flood the world's low-lying coastal areas.

Don't tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period.

Dr. Weiss believes that man-made greenhouse gases have recently had a role in warming the earth, although the extent of that role, he says, cannot yet be known. What is known, however, is that throughout earth's history climate change has been driven by factors other than man: "Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation," says Dr. Weiss, "and there is increasing evidence that Earth's climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity."

The sun's most obvious magnetic features are sunspots, formed as magnetic fields rip through the sun's surface. A magnetically active sun boosts the number of sunspots, indicating that vast amounts of energy are being released from deep within.

Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.

"The deeper the crash, the longer it will last," Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.

The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.

In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we're now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.

No one knows precisely when a crash will occur but some expect it soon, because the sun's polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s. Some predict the crash within five years, and many speculate about its effect on global warming. A mild crash could be beneficial, in giving us Earthlings the decades needed to reverse our greenhouse gas producing ways. Others speculate that the recent global warming may be a blessing in disguise, big-time, by moderating the negative consequences of what might otherwise be a deep chill following a deep crash. During the Little Ice Age, scientists estimate, global temperatures on average may have dropped by less than 1 degree Celsius, showing the potential consequences of even an apparently small decline.

Dr. Weiss prefers not to speculate. He sees the coming crash as an opportunity to obtain the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on climate change, and the extent to which man-made emissions have been a factor.

"Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun's true level of influence on the Earth's climate," concludes Dr. Weiss. Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of "flux expulsion" by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Nigel Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge's School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge.

posted in Global Warming - The Lie - 2 replies