Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Macromedia's Flash Player. Click here to get the latest flash player.
Stop Al Gore's Interests
General
Figure 1: Predicted greenhouse warming (left) versus reality (right) as a function of latitude (x) and altitude (y)
Lord Monckton has written down a convincing paper showing that the greenhouse effect predicts a "hot spot" at certain rather high altitudes above the equatorial zones, something that isn't really observed:
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Overturning the "Consensus" in One Fell SwoopNew research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. Schwartz’s study is “in press” at the Journal of Geophysical Research and you can download a preprint of the studyhere.
November 17, 2007:LISTEN to Interview with NRSP Executive Director Tom Harris on The Roy Green Show on the Corus Radio Network across Canada. The real numbers of scientists who reviewed the most important part of the IPCC assessment reports is discussed.
UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud!
At virtually the same time NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies was correcting historical climate data with the assistance of Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre, a British mathematician discovered serious flaws in papers used and cited by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent Assessment Report.
The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.
Readers are encouraged to review Keenan's ENTIRE REPORT, as well as the summary available at his website Informath.org, to make their own conclusions.
See with your own eyes the IPCC Expert Reviewer Comments; The REAL scientists that are being censored & opinions ignored if they dissagree with the already pre-determined "consensus"!
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our (or any) debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
Because he's at odds with the IPCC, Morner would be about as welcome at this year's meeting as the International Climate Science Coalition has been. That group of international scientists, skeptical of the global warming theory, was told it could not present its information at the conference.Claim That Sea Level Rising Is
a Total Fraud!"Suddenly it changed," Morner said of the IPCC's 2003 sea-level chart, which is intended to convince the public that warming due to man's activities is melting ice that will cause the oceans to rise to dangerous levels.The change "showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 millimeters per year," which just happens to be the same increase that was measured by one of six Hong Kong tide gauges. Morner said that particular tide gauge is "the only record which you shouldn't use" because "every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment."A simple error by the IPCC? Not in Morner's mind. "Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that," he said. "It is a falsification of the data set."
THE SOLAR CONNECTION
An Ominous Prediction
Watch video response to the Lockwood Paper (High Speed Connection)
The Lockwood paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film but it is in fact an absolute gift to climate atheists. What the paper says was of course all well-known already but the concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years really is invaluable. And the one fact that the paper documents so well - that solar output is on the downturn - is also hilarious, given its source. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even be the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
**NEW**Next Solar Cycle Late and Likely to be a Dud - the Implications
I agree with those who call for a much weaker maximum. I base this on studies published by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany. The late Dr. Landscheidt was a giant in the field of climatology. He has also successfully predicted many of the extreme events of recent past decades in advance based solely on his SOLAR FORCASTING TECHNIQUE! Based on his achievements, it would be unwise to ignore his predictions of the comming colder climate.
The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity."
If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, "off the bottom of the charts."
Here's what Dr. Landscheidt said: "The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong."(if you follow this kind of thing like I do you would know that James Hansen et al. predicted the 2007 El Nino to as bad as 97,98 based on the models - as fate would have it we are now in a weak La Nina(May/June 07) The polar opposite...so far Dr. Landscheidt has been incredibly accurate & models continue to fail! I've seen this time and time again...models feed back on a short term trend like the one we're leaving and incorrectly continue it until it finally catches on and corrects...this is where long range weather guru's come in to sort out the inherant problems with these models...the human element is needed to avert mistakes such as the ones the IPCC and other alarmists are engaged in.
"Analysis of the sun's activity in the last two millennia indicates that, contrary to the
IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming, that we could be headed into
a Maunder minimum type of climate (a Little Ice Age)."
Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at M.I.T., notes that despite increasing carbon emissions, the rise in earth's temperature is less than you would expect and not consistent, interrupted by repeated cooling periods.
In a column posted on MSNBC.com, Lindzen writes that "average temperatures have risen only about 0.6 degree since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform — warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between." Is solar activity the determining factor in earth's climate?Says Patterson, the Canadian geologist: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth." Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again. If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."Al Gore, call your office
Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective Putting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" ,and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the" global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change,"Whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-up or down-the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely...NO!
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of it's own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains:"What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said: "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly...What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
Ice AgesMother Nature is not gentle and loving in either hot or cold periods of significant changing world climate and temperature. The Greenhouse Effect creates the Atmospheric Insulation by utilizing about 2% of the atmospheric gases which provide Global Warmth for the earth.Ice ages have a normal period of development of 90,000 to 100,000 years. Warm periods historically have abnormally short lives representing only 10% of that time. A normal range between the ice ages and warm interglacial periods is 5°F to 20°F variation in temperature.An Ice Age would be much more destructive to our way of life than increasing warmth. The world population as we know it, could not be sustained during an Ice Age.
From study of past geologic events, it seems we are near a pending arrival of a beginning new ice age, which eventually could create related catastrophic results which perhaps could be modified and reduced with increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the last 2 million years, the earth has gone through about 17 Ice Ages. It is scientifically illogical to assume these repetitive periods of major climate and temperature change have now stopped without some measured scientific indication or proof. Changes in the earth's topography and ocean currents and continental drift all have had an earthbound effect on the changing climate. The tilt of the earth, and the output of the sun and the changes in the elliptical path of the earth around the sun also have major effects over geologic time on the climate and temperatures of the earth. Some of these changes are not necessarily slow.
Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming
Dr.Shariv a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer acceptsthis logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-ray flux has on our atmosphere. "So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
“Climate change models, no matter how powerful, can never give a precise prediction of how greenhouse gases will warm the Earth, according to a new study. The result will provide ammunition to those who argue not enough is known about global warming to warrant taking action.” Well, well. Now there is a surprise. [The study in question will be found in the journal, Science (October 26, 2007: 318 (5850), 629.|DOI: 10.1126/science.1144735) Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?’ by Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker of the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle An associated commentary (October 26, 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5850, pp. 582 - 583|DOI: 10.1126/science.1149988): ‘Call Off The Quest’ is especially illuminating. The commentators are Myles R. Allen and David J. Frame, from the Department of Physics and the Centre for Environment respectively, the University of Oxford] In essence, to the frustration of policy makers, model temperature estimates have not become more precise over the last 20 years. Moreover: “It now appears that the estimates will never get much better”, while... better computer models or observational data will not do much to reduce that uncertainty.”
Ultimately, the papers also illustrate the limits to which models, even those produced by powerful supercomputers, can help politicians make decisions Absolutely. Taking all the models and temperature ranges proposed for the UK alone, there is an error bar of over 8 degrees C. What use is that to farmers, to business planners, or to anybody else for that matter, especially when nobody has the foggiest idea about precipitation or regional variations?
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
* Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
* CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life - plants and animals alike - benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
* CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
** If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
*"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.
CO2 MYTHS, FACTS & REALITIES - PROOF that todays CO2 levels are NOT Unnatural or Unusual!
Notice this is the undisputed absorption properties of all GHG's in our atmosphere. This clearly displays the true forcing CO2 rightfully diservers...which to say the least isn't much!
FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE
There is substantial proof that today's claimed 'abnormally high' CO2 is a victim of weakensses in proxy studies
(I/O a thousand years from now today's CO2 levels will show up as a little bump in proxy studies, spikes etc will be smoothed out. Proxies give good indications of the past but do not pick up every little detail)
180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Historic (CO2 Peak) papers Data - Methods - All provide substantial proof there have been much higher CO2 amounts than today's as recent as the 1940's without any ill effect on our climate.
Me-Why were the higher reading ignored? Answer: To make it appear that "today's C02 levels are highest it's been in 650k years!" Alot easier to make false claims than it is to scientifically dissprove them. When that daunting & expensive task is completed and studies like these are completed; the Pro-MMGW crowd engages in a smear campaign too easily accepted with the all too familiar accuastion of "Their in the pay of oil or coal.
See study here:
READ PEER REVIEWED STUDY
**********************************************************
The Manipulation of Reality, The Falsified History of C02
The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957.
The IPCC's hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO2 concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Beck's work confirms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherrypicked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Sun's heat output.
In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gore's), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel prize winners. Measurements by these chemists showed that today's atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) have been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO2 levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.
ABC's 20/20 John Stossel segment on Global WarmingClimate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 3Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 4Global Warming or Global Governance? See: http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.comEnviron-Mentalism: A New Religion for a New AgeGreenpeace BULL SHITCO2 & Glaciers, what you're not being toldGlobal Cooling: The Coming Ice AgeMore of GORE's LIES EXPOSED!An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction? Part IAn Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction? Part IIGlobal Warming Smokings Guns; Exposing the Myths by The Internet Skeptic. Long but very good study on cause and effectGlobal Warming: An Unsettled ScienceScare tactics in An Inconvenient Truth - Parental disgression advised!Green House Conspiracy
Television
The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate:
(A very partial list - If you want to have one added, send me the link and I'll put it on the list)
They call this a consensus?! Straight from IPCC report - Note the 'level of scientific understanding' See how many 'VERY LOW' there are!?
See how "SOLAR" is portrayed? It's given a tiny positive forcing value...In reality it is both a positive and negative forcing at much greater value than shown!Meanwhile CO2 continues to enjoy the limelight.
Climate Change Bill Has a Cost: $494 a Year for Every U.S. Man, Woman and Child
What's another $500 taken out of your paycheck over the course of a year? It probably isn't much to global warming alarmists like Al Gore, but that's what it could cost you if legislation pending in the U.S. Senate is passed into law. Does that $500 have your attention? Well, multiply that times every member of your immediate family.
According to a November 11 Washington Times editorial, a bill introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions could cost Americans $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years. If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child - more than 303 million Americans - $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.
If you're not yet skeptical of this global warming initiative, listen to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who warns the effects of carbon caps would be limited unless imposed globally. He said in his book, "The Age of Turbulence," that caps imposed only on the United States could be detrimental.
"There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," Greenspan wrote. "Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."
Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Incomeh
A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to current concerns about global warming, says renown economist Arthur Laffer in a new study released today.
Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and more...
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of over $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study]
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: “Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal.”
Read Senator Inhofe’s full opening statement from today’s EPW subcommittee hearing [Link]
High price for load of hot air
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $60 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.READ MORE HERE
Probability of Sudden Global Cooling - 94% as we have reached the end of our Inter-Glacial Period
The attached data is well known and was derived mathematically by Quinn et al. in 1991 and it shows the effect of orbital geometry on solar forcing or insolation, and displays global climate as glaciation data on the same time scale. What seems to have been overlooked is the remarkable degree of correlation between insolation (shown in yellow) and sudden changes in global climate which are reflected in the glaciation data.
A close review of the attached data shows that over the past 400KY there have been 18 down cycles in insolation and these correlate with 17 sudden downturns in global temperature. We have a rapid decline in insolation now. The data also clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and it shows that we have reached the end of the typical Interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden cooling climate change. (See top chart in this section)
- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years but high quality satellite measurements show ~0.3deg;C(IPCC) - Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC) - 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC) - Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source) - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA) - Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) - Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source) - Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA) - Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA) - The warmest year in the United States was 1934. (NASA)
* Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory. * There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change. * Science is not determined by "consensus" but by the Scientific Method.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT affiliated With any organization or paid! I WILL NOT TOLLERATE SPAM, PERSONAL ATTACKS OR OTHER OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, THANK YOU.
At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks a very large error. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5% higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond.That is why all of the IPCC's computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere "hot-spot", the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC's computer predictions. The IPCC's entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.
Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.
Joe Bastardi
Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather, and he is heard daily on a number of radio stations. His daily weather column is the most extensive in the business and has helped establish him, along with his videos, as the internet's go-to guy for long-range and hurricane forecasting. He is also the one who first opened my eyes to the many facits of long range forcasting. "The key to this is understanding and using the past as tools for 'clues' about the future climate, not just computer models. A one sided approach to something as complex and chaotic as our atmosphere is a recipe for dissaster."
Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001', Wellington, New Zealand , Ph.D., is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes. William M. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantichurricane season activity. Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984. After the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Gray cited that he was devoting more time to the issue of global warming. Gray said "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." Gray also stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this,I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". “Al Gore is one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about.”
Lord Monckton,
a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An
Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide. Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and
defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the
world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue
of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he
should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a
worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a
serious, science-based challenge."
Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Former Lead Author IPCC, an environmental consultant, well-known public speaker and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg will serve as NRSP’s Chairman as well as Chair of the NRSP Scientific Advisory Committee. "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the gr
