SLAYING THE SKY DRAGON 2

Complementary articles and essays to the original Sky Dragon book

Death of the

Greenhouse Gas Theory

www.slayingtheskydragon.com

The Settled Climate Science revisited

This book is dedicated to Ernst-Georg Beck and all like-minded scientists world-wide

Front cover designs © John O’Sullivan & Tom Richard

CHAPTER INDEX

Mišo Alkalaj Pricking the Sky Dragon: Casting doubt on

one small piece of UN IPCC reasoning 8 Hans Jelbring Shattering the Greenhouse Effect 14 Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases 22 Joe Olson Additional Defects of the Green Machine 31 The Geo-Nuclear Connection 36 Tim Ball Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and

Critical Details Right at the Surface 43 Climate Change Hysteria Falters.

Water is the New Target 49 Climate Science Corruption: Practiced and

Perpetuated by Scientific Societies 54 Charles Anderson The Earth’s Gravitational Field and

Near Sea Level Atmospheric Temperatures 60 Philip Foster Climate Reality: The long view 75 Hans Schreuder A Lesson on Basic Physics 82

Vincent Gray The End Justifies the Means 89 Nils-Axel Mörner Claim That Sea Level is Rising is a Total Fraud 92 Malcolm Robert Climate Alarmist Called to Account 95 The Dark Green Lie and a drive to reclaim your country 104 John Droz Jr The Elephant in the Room 106 The Power of Energy 111 John Rosenthal The EU Connection in Climate Research 124 Paul Driessen No more Double Standards 148 End the Ethanol Subsidies 154 Jonathan Drake Is there a Solar Component in the

Global Historical Climatology Network? 159 Benjamin B. Phillips Tilting at Windmills 200

John O’Sullivan Satellitegate: the new Climategate Scandal

the Media Won’t Report 204 Climategate One Year on - the Curious Missing Police Report 217 Geraldo Luís Lino Climate Change: The Keywords, Part 1 223 Climate Change: The Keywords, Part 2 232 Climate Change: The Keywords, Part 3 241 Author Biographies 251

Disclaimer The authors of this book received no funding from government agencies or private corporations and the opinions expressed are entirely their own. *SPECIAL PDF EDITION FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY* This edition has been sent to you for your private use only and may not be copied, printed or distributed in any manner whatsoever. Failure to comply implies breach of copyright and will be subject to prosecution.

Pricking the Sky Dragon: Casting doubt on one small piece of UN IPCC reasoning By Mišo Alkalaj

The life of a climate skeptic is no holiday. We battle against a well-entrenched public misconception that is supported by most of the media and politicians. When we are invited to lecture on our “heresy” or to debate somebody that supports the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have to be prepared with ironclad arguments and equipped with scientific sources beyond reproach—and still we are frequently perceived as loonies. To wit, there is little fun in a skeptic’s career (but, to quote Gimli the Dwarf: “Certainty of death, small chance of success ... What are we waiting for?”)—and one of the highlights of mine was being invited to contribute to the Slayer volume. Recently (in October 2010) I published a considerably less ambitious skeptic’s book of my own in Slovenian: Podnebna prevara (The Climate Fraud, http://www.orbis.si/index.php?3091&backPID=3091&tt_products=9056). I was in the final editing process when news of the forthcoming Slayer book was announced, so I sought to establish contact with the authors to get a sneak peak at the material; I wanted to check whether I had made any blatant errors in my own work (I did not). After my book was already in print, I happened to come across the following little piece of “scientific consensus” that the IPCC flies by, so my first thought was to share it with Claes Johnson.

My involvement with the isotopic argument started when a fellow skeptic from the US became involved in a debate about the causes of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) and his opponent advanced the argument that CO2 from human activity—such as coal combustion—can be distinguished from “natural” carbon dioxide even far away from its emission, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as the source. In view of past practice of the IPCC—especially after Climategate—AR4 hardly seems to be an adequate corroborative source. It is pretty much as though the government of the People’s Republic of China cited proceedings of the Chinese Communist Party congress in support of its policies. Lest I be accused of misapplication of logic, let me make myself clear: the fact that AR4 is cited in support of an IPCC claim (or the proceedings of the Chinese Communist Party congress cited in support of Chinese government policies) does not make the claim false, but it offers no new information; it seems reasonable to assume that all IPCC publications support the IPCC’s claims (as all decisions of the Chinese Communist Party support the policies of the Chinese government). Setting aside the above caveat, the AR4 "The Physical Science Basis does state the following on page 139 ("Chapter 2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing"):

“The increases in global atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution are mainly due to CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, gas flaring and cement production.” [1]

In addition, on page 139, there is an explanation of how CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels could be differentiated from other sources:

Emissions of CO2 from coal, gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of CO2 from fossil origin.

The substantiating source - Prentice et al. (2001) “The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” - is an article in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001), but we have already set such reservations aside. For any reader that might be unfamiliar with isotopes, a brief explanation is in order. Carbon occurs in three types of atoms: 99% is the most common 12C with six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus, 1% is the slightly heavier 13C with six protons and seven neutrons, and the third isotope, 14C with six protons and eight neutrons, accounts for only 0.0000000001% of carbon atoms. It is unstable with a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years and, although it is essential for determining the age of organic matter, it plays no further part in our story. All carbon isotopes are chemically identical, they differ only in weight.

However, when different isotopes are involved in biochemical reactions, it is quite common for a “bias” against heavier atoms to come into evidence. One might consider the following analogy: if a rational worker were presented with a pile of stones and told nothing more but to carry half of them up a flight of steps, it is likely that he or she would be “biased” against the heavier stones and that the new pile would contain more smaller stones than the average of the original heap. Prentice et al. (2001) relies on measurements that clearly show such a “bias” in plants. Specifically, bodies of plants with C3-type metabolisms contain (on average) 99.12% 12C carbon and 0.88% 13C, as compared to the atmospheric ratio of 99% 12C vs. 1% 13C. Prehistoric giant ferns and other plants that carbonized over eons into coal had a C3-type metabolism and therefore combustion of coal introduces CO2 into the atmosphere that contains 0.12% less of the 13C isotope; therefore, if present in sufficient quantities, this would eventually decrease the atmospheric concentration of 13C below 1%. Prentice et al. (2001) makes the claim that such a decrease in atmospheric content of the 13C isotope has in fact been recorded in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements from 1980 to 2005, and that therefore this must be due to human emissions of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels. However, there is a problem. C3-type plants are not extinct; in fact, they make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life! Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material also emits the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.

To be fair to Prentice et al. (2001), one should note that the article attempts to apply the allegedly measured decrease in atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C to differentiate fossil fuel CO2 from that emitted by outgassing of the oceans (when the water warms up it releases some of the dissolved CO2 that it absorbed when it was colder), but the conclusion still does not follow: the allegedly measured decrease in the atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C could only indicate that (some of the) increased atmospheric content of CO2 may be due to any increased decomposition of C3-type plant material, of which human combustion of fossil fuels provides only some 10% (and even that only provided that CO2 outgassed from the oceans is predominantly what is absorbed from the atmosphere, and not produced by C3-plants decaying in the water). There is ample evidence that decay of plant material has indeed increased in the period investigated by Prentice et al. (2001). First of all, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen, certainly in the second half of the twentieth century, and resulting carbon fertilization has enhanced plant growth, thereby producing more C3-type material for decay. Second, temperatures have increased during the last quarter of the twentieth century, and warmth not only enhances plant growth but also intensifies the rate of decay. If the measurements of a decrease in the 13C/12C ratio cited by Prentice et al. (2001) are indeed correct (I have my doubts: it seems that such a small change could be well within the error margin of the method), the most one could conclude would be that emissions of gasified C3-plant material increased during the last quarter of the twentieth century—but not that this must be due to human combustion of fossil fuels.

Thus, the only conclusion warranted by the articles and measurements cited is actually that temperatures have probably increased during the last quarter of the twentieth century. This is not news - we all know that temperatures have increased. Consequently, the 13C/12C argument seems to be just another piece of circular or unwarranted IPCC reasoning purporting to demonstrate that “global warming” (a.k.a. “climate change”, a.k.a. “global climate disruption”) is due to human emissions - which this very book so effectively demolishes. Reference: [1] (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm)

Shattering the Greenhouse Effect http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/shattering-greenhouse-effect.html A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring [1] offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.' Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of 'greenhouse gases' and the 'greenhouse effect' is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.

Essay from source has been edited to remove references to Swedish law and politics What has politics, a needed instrument to run a nation, to do with a scientific concept that tells the difference between the surface temperature of earth and the temperature of earth’s atmosphere as seen from space? This temperature difference of 33C has unfortunately and inadequately been named “The Greenhouse Effect” (GE) despite the absence of any relationship between this effect and the warm climate in a real greenhouse. The intention of this paper is to cover the title subject in a few pages in a way that is understandable to a high school student and, hence, to Swedish parliamentary members. Basic scientific principles demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of “greenhouse gases”. The IPCC is biased from the start by its mandate. It only covers the impact on climate caused by man (anthropogenic or AGW) which is reductionism that does not conform to scientific methods. Furthermore, the IPCC has chosen not to investigate those types of local, regional and national global anthropogenic impacts which actually do exist. The IPCC has emphasized the importance of an unverified, simplistic model that predicts a particular surface temperature of earth as being caused by “greenhouse gases”. These are specifically identified as carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is wrongly assumed to be “a quantifiable feedback” to carbon dioxide, which is 50 times less abundant than water vapour in the atmosphere. Such a model is far too inexact and speculative to describe the complex climate system. This type of logic does not conform to accepted scientific methodology.

The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the average surface temperature of earth is 33ºC warmer than the temperature at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is -18 ºC). The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33ºC? There are many indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us mention a few ways the IPCC “greenhouse gas” claim can be debunked. I. The high school approach. The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter. The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 m3 volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33ºC. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but unscrupulous scientists can twist.

II. Observational evidence On any sunny day the solar irradiation hitting the surface of earth will warm the air just above it which will then start to lift. A black ground surface, such as a parking place or a newly plowed field, will absorb more solar energy and subsequently heat the air more than surfaces of lighter colors. Hawks and vultures know about this phenomenon, allowing them to be able to hover above such surfaces without moving their wings. The temperature decrease with elevation in such a situation is very close to the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate which can be derived theoretically. It is -9.8ºC/km. Everyday observational evidence and theoretical derivations show that the temperature lapse rate in such situations can be determined without consideration of any influence at all from greenhouse gases, whether they are of anthropogenic origin or not. Hence, GE has to be a function of other processes than “greenhouse gases”. The question remains if CO2 has a measurable influence, at all. III. Advanced theoretical considerations he theoretical temperature lapse rate that can be expected to be found in the earth’s atmosphere depends on a number of physical processes that are possible to identify. The GE is basically determined by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The energy per mass unit of an atmosphere will tend to equalize and become constant from the surface upwards. This will lead to an average vertical cooling rate defined by –g/Cp, (g is gravity and Cp heat capacity of air) which also is named the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate.

This lapse rate is modulated by condensation processes in the atmospheres (clouds) and other less important physical processes. The influence of greenhouse gases is small. These additional processes lead to an average observed global temperature lapse rate around -6.5C/km [2]. This temperature decrease can be directly verified by any airplane passenger. A strict proof showing that there is no theoretical reason to assume that greenhouse gases cause the bulk of the 33 ºC GE can be found in the peer reviewed article in ref [3]. There are several other relevant articles in scientific journals. Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field Author: William C. Gilbert There still seems to be some confusion in the Climate Science Community about the temperature distribution in a gaseous atmosphere under the influence of a gravitational field. My academic degrees are in Chemical Engineering and Chemistry and I have spent over three decades in Research and Development in private industry (DuPont, Monsanto, Celanese and American Cyanamid). I became interested in Climate Science some four years ago because it seemed to be a perfect fit with my Chemical Engineering background (large, complex, multi-variant systems involving significant heat and mass transfer processes) and I thought I may be able to contribute something. I was immediately amazed at the paltry level of scientific competence that I found, especially in the basic areas of heat and mass transfer. Even the relatively simple analysis of atmospheric temperature distributions were misunderstood completely.

To illustrate the level of simplicity involved with this topic, let's go back to basic physics. Consider a vertical gas column containing a finite and constant specific energy level (U, J/kg) that is isolated from its surroundings (no input/output of energy or mass) but which is in a gravitational field. The column will in time reach equilibrium with respect to internal specific energy but the temperature will not be uniform. At static equilibrium (adiabatic equilibrium where no macro motion exists), internal specific energy (U) is composed of both thermal energy (the energy due to molecular motion) and potential energy (the energy due to position). The latter has to exist in a gravitational field. Thus, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics, the specific internal energy (U) for any mass parcel in the air column has to be constant and can be expressed as a sum of the thermal and potential energies. This law (expressed as specific energies) can be written:

U = CpT + gh or upon differentiation dU = CpdT + gdh (1) where “CpT” is the enthalpy (or thermal energy) per mass unit, “g” is the gravitational acceleration, “h” is the vertical height and “gh” is the potential energy per mass unit. At static equilibrium dU = 0 and equation (1) becomes;

CpdT + gdh = 0 (2)

Thus, according to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for any given difference in altitude (height) the increase in specific potential energy (gdh) must be offset by a corresponding decrease in thermal energy (CpdT) and a corresponding decrease in temperature. Thus in a gravitational field an atmosphere in equilibrium must have a non- isothermal decreasing temperature distribution with altitude. This is true in an isolated air column and this basic physical phenomenon exists independent of any input/output of other energy sources such as ground temperature, convection, radiation, convection, etc. And of course equation (2) can be rewritten as:

dT/dh = -g/CpT = -9.8 K/km which is a temperature profile often observed in our atmosphere on a daily basis. This static temperature lapse rate (in this model atmosphere) is identical to the dry adiabatic lapse rate theoretically derived in Meteorology for a convective adiabatic air parcel. In both situations it is solely a function of the magnitude of the gravitational field and the heat capacity of the atmospheric gas, and nothing else. And this relationship aptly describes the bulk of the 33ºC so-called “Greenhouse Effect” that is the bread and butter of the Climate Science Community. It is remarkable that this very simple derivation is totally ignored in the field of Climate Science simply because it refutes the radiation heat transfer model as the dominant cause of the GE.

Hence, that community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what “science” has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed. References: [1] http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/ Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf [2] The US 1976 standard atmosphere: http://modelweb.gsfc. nasa.gov/atmos/us_standard.html and http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/index.htm [3] Jelbring, Hans R. The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass, Energy and Environment, Vol.14, Nr 2&3, 2003.

Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases By Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo How long does carbon dioxide linger in the air?

This is actually an important question, a question of so-called residence time. As previously discussed on this blog http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2_study.pdf, studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad rather convincingly show that earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade, meaning that a CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other authorities insist that carbon dioxide generally remains in the air for up to 200 years.

Who to believe?

We’ll present some evidence here and you be the judge.

Looking at the rising trend of carbon dioxide, the U.S. government’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - http://cdiac.ornl.gov - states the matter plainly: "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years, so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention."

"Safely assumed."

In other words, what people were doing in 1850 is supposedly still exerting an effect today. Having nowhere else to go, the man-made CO2 tally builds and builds in the air. Even if we all suddenly stopped driving cars and clearing forests and heating our homes - you name it - we’d have to wait more than

a century to see the same CO2 level that the 1850s saw. For here is what the historical trend looks like.

In 1750, carbon's weight in the atmosphere was 590 billion metric tons. By 2000 it was about 790 billion. And here is CDIAC’s year-by-year estimate of human emissions during that period.

But here are the two on the same scale.

Only by proposing that carbon stagnates in the air, building up year by year, can one make the case that a molehill like that can spawn such an Everest. So let’s take the figures that CDIAC uses for its estimate and mount them one on top of another to see what happens. The idea is that 2000’s carbon level is due to 1999’s carbon output going nowhere, and 1998’s before that, and 1997’s... and so on. All of those carbon atoms just pile up as we keep pumping out more. Here is what results by making CDIAC’s figures accumulate, then.

"Safely assumed"? Notice that even a grand total of CDIAC's numbers fails to mimic the atmospheric carbon curve. A hypothetical accumulation of anthropogenic carbon undershoots for more than 200 years, and then rapidly surpasses it. This extra amount would make carbon’s weight in the year 2000 nearly 900 billion metric tons, much higher than the level we observe. Climate Modelers are aware of this "missing excess" and they account for the discrepancy by saying that various "carbon sinks" mop most of it up, pulling atmospheric carbon to a lower level. Oddly enough, however, year by year these sinks must keep enlarging as accumulating man-made carbon steepens. In effect, nature finds a way to handle increasing spillovers with ever-bigger mops. How strange.

Yet "carbon sinks" were presumably active between 1751 and 1960, too, when the tally was below the actual curve. Since they were driving this hypothetical accumulation downward, the present slope shouldn’t show an excess. So how do we know that this excess even exists? The fact is, we don’t. It is merely "safely assumed."

Notice the inherent contradiction, though. Certain prominent authorities propose a very long residence time for CO2, which creates a buildup. But as to why we don’t see a buildup as gigantic as the figures predict, they propose that carbon sinks remove it.

Thus a considerable amount of carbon dioxide is being recycled – which means it doesn't have a long residence time! So let’s rethink all this. Might it be a mistake to blame the rising carbon trend on human emissions alone? Though one could agree that long-lived emissions don't add up, maybe the problem isn’t just one of adding carbon to our atmosphere - it might involve a loss of subtraction, too, the environmental damage we’ve inflicted which reduces earth’s ability to recycle carbon. Thus, although emissions may not convincingly explain the curve, a damage factor can’t be excluded and as a result we’re probably still responsible. What this argument is saying is that anthropogenic carbon is part of the problem and environmental impact, often called land-use change, is another part. When you look at the carbon curve, then, you’re seeing a combined effect. So how can one disentangle them? Well, one doesn’t have to Just as we took yearly emission figures and saw the odd result of putting them in a big pile, we can do much the same with a "mixed blame" scenario. So let’s go with the vague premise that "human intervention" - deforestation, bovine flatulence, carbonated beverages, whatever - has indeed caused a rising carbon trend. We don’t have to know every detail of what we did to make it happen, only that we did it - and that the carbon trend is a portrait of our ecological sins. Rather than a raw accumulation of carbon emissions in the air, it’s an accumulating effect that we wish to measure this time, including non-emission aspects like land-use changes that also ruin the atmosphere.

As the government’s chief authority says, after all, it’s a safe bet that atmospheric changes since the Industrial Revolution are due to human intervention. Logically, then, what’s bad must stay bad if it is to echo across the centuries. The record to track is right in front of us, therefore: the atmosphere itself. So when we determine the figures needed to account for an accumulated carbon curve, the result itemizes the damage we’ve done on a year-by-year basis. Here it is.

The atmospheric carbon slope is reduced to one-tenth scale for comparison. The blue line is the year-by-year damage estimate, the single profile that fits. Thus, adding 1750's generalized damage to 1751's, then 1751 to 1752, and onward to 2000, matches atmospheric carbon concentrations exactly. For remember, "it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention."

Yet as you can see, at two periods in history all carbon-related human activity - smokestack emissions, cement production, forest clearing, cattle herding, rice cultivation, strip mining - would have to have fallen to below zero in order to manipulate carbon in the atmosphere. Not to bore you by stating the obvious, but this is impossible. The profile emerges from a ‘safely assumed’ scenario of 100% human impact. So once again, following the accumulation premise leads to a contradiction: in real-life, historically recent carbon-adding human activity has only risen, not declined in any significant way, and certainly never fallen below zero, whatever that might mean. Going by the profile, for instance, you'd have to believe that 1880 was equal to 1930 in terms of human additions to carbon in the atmosphere. By the way, here the carbon slope and damage profile are on the same scale.

In summary, we have seen the following:

• Human emissions are far lower than the actual rise of carbon in the air

• Accumulated emissions exceed the actual rise • Correcting for the excess necessitates that carbon sinks

keep growing • But an expansion of carbon sinks means that CO2 is

getting recycled • A long-term accumulation profile for total carbon

content leads to below-zero outcomes

That’s the evidence, now you decide. Does the evidence support a long-term residence time for carbon dioxide? Does it support the assertion that changes in the atmosphere have been driven by human intervention?

*************** As an amusing sidelight, this fictional "damage profile" that we’ve shown you has been published before, in another guise. It is duplicated in a 2001 publication of NASA’s James Hansen: www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/26/14778

Choosing 1850 as his starting point, Hansen does blame this profile on people, however, perversely convincing himself that the years between 1939 and 1944 must have marked a period of international unity. Read what he says:

“The growth rate of climate forcing by measured greenhouse gases peaked near 1980 at almost 5 W/m² per century. This growth rate has since declined to ~3 W/m² per century, largely because of cooperative international actions.”

By this logic, World War Two was the best of times for greenhouse earth, when the whole world got together and drove the growth rate below zero. (Incidentally, global temperatures were climbing during that period.) Yes, Hansen is that myopic, unable to notice the absurdity of his premise even when it’s clearly laid out on a chart. But maybe he’s correct, maybe we ought to drop bombs all over the planet to pull the CO2 level down. Call it Kyoto Plan B. *************** Our conclusion: People are not responsible for the documented rise of carbon in the atmosphere. Not only do the numbers fail to match, the numbers can’t be made to match.

Additional Defects of the Green Machine By Joe Olson There can be little doubt that the entire human caused climate fraud has been an intentional politically motivated movement. This has involved an elaborate network of direct government involvement and indirect government funding to provide the illusion of ‘consensus’ that would be beyond any further debate. Fortunately for the future of science, truth and humanity many honest scientists and analysts from many lands have objectively looked at the hypothesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming and found it invalid. No analysis of this failed hypothesis is complete without examining what has been endorsed by the AGW supporters as the ‘solution’ to this non-existent problem. The proposed ‘Green Energy Solution’ is as defective as the AGW science, with defects so obvious that endorsement must also qualify as an intention deception. The ‘Green Energy Solutions’ are primarily focused on wind energy and solar energy, with fictional claims for future tidal and geothermal which have been fictional claims for over a half century already. If stopping the release of hydro-carbons was the highest priority, then nuclear and hydro-electric would be considered ‘green’, but these power sources have long been on the eco-zealot ‘hit’ list. The Eco-religion could not allow reclassification of these two carbon-free energy systems and maintain peace between the devout tree-huggers and the obsessed warmists. Demise of the warmist orthodoxy will reopen debate and action on all reliable systems of energy production. For now, some further analysis of the unreliable ‘green energy’ systems.

Volumes have been written on the defects of wind driven electrical generation. The wind energy standard is a net output of less that 25% of rated capacity with constant fluctuations in power. Add in bird and bat strikes, noise and visual pollution, transmission losses and foundation failures and you have just a portion of the wind energy flaws. Every existing ‘wind farm’ is its own testament to failure. The truly functional wind farm is an illusion that humanity cannot afford to waste our resources on. As mentioned there are volumes of material on wind energy available, but what is not as well understood are the defects of solar energy. As alluring as the premise may be, the promise of solar energy is not free. The first solar cell was created in 1883 by Charles Fritts using a sheet of Selenium with thin Gold facings. The Sun radiates approximately 1000 watts per square meter at maximum. The Fritts cell produced 10 watts per square meter or 1% efficiency. The Russell Ohl patent of 1946 is considered the first modern solar cell. Today’s solar panels are high purity Silicon with a light doping of Phosphorus and Boron to provide breaks in the Silicon for electron movement. Silicon has four electrons in an an outer shell that would be balanced with eight electrons. Silicon forms a crystal structure where the four outer electrons fill the four electron void in the adjoining atom. By adding a small amount of Phosphorous with five electrons and Boron with three electrons in their outer shells, scientists have been able to create a form of molecular potential energy. When exposed to sunlight the ‘surplus’ Phosphorous electron gets excited enough to leave that portion of the Silicon crystal and travel a short distance to the vacant electron opening at the Boron atom location. This creates a milliamp current with only a 0.55 voltage potential.

By placing a conductor grid on the face of the panel this current flow can be drawn off for use. Silicon crystal is highly reflective and the solar facing side must be treated with an anti-reflective coating, then the conducting surface grid and finally a glass cover for protection from weather. All of these conditions limit some of the incoming light. Only certain segments of the solar spectrum activate this flow and the net result is 10% efficiency, or approximately 100 watts per square meter. Efficiencies as high as 40% are available with exotic materials, but then one must address the ‘high cost of free’, which applies to every ‘green’ technology. Silicone, Phosphorus and Boron are common elements, but to mine, refine and bring on line has a cost. That cost is reflected in ‘cost payback’ of 5 to 7 years depending on the system. The total system life is 20 years. But these costs are based on low cost carbon based energy systems providing these materials. Much like paying your Visa bill with your Master Card, this parasitic ‘clean’ energy cannot provide the ‘spare’ energy to avoid ‘dirty’ energy. There is a certain loss of electrons in this system and power production erodes over time until at twenty years they are useless. Sunlight is not converted to electricity. Sunlight erodes molecularly stored potential energy from the embedded Phosphorus atoms until there are no spare electrons left. There is a 0.5% loss in production for every degree Centigrade (1% per degree Fahrenheit) which limits the use of mirrors or lenses to increase production. This defect also limits solar cell use in equatorial deserts where there would be the least ‘environmental’ impact. The glass covers require periodic cleaning and are subject to damage from hail and wind debris.

In winter climates snow and ice build-up prevent any electrical production. Tracking systems can improve efficiency but are not themselves cost effective. What we are left with is a costly, unreliable short term solution with no offsetting benefit. Various methods have been tried to create storage systems to overcome the daily periodic nature of sunlight. Every storage system involves a change of state. This change, based on the Carnot Cycle of thermodynamics, must have a loss both into and out of storage. To date no capacitor, pumped hydro-storage or spinning flywheel solution has been even the least bit practical. The most common method of storing solar energy for extended use is the battery, which is the heart of that ‘other’ planet saver, the electric automobile. Soon Electric Vehicles, aka EVs, will replace the nasty internal combustion engine and humanity will be in harmony with the Universe. The transition technology in this race is the hybrid auto and the front runner is the Toyota Prius. This undeniable marvel has a 120 pound Nickel-Metal Hydride battery that costs $3500 to replace or approximately $20 per pound. There again, a cost based on carbon energy providing the material production. The ‘Metal Hydride’ portion of these batteries includes the rare Earth elements of Lanthanum, Cerium and Neodymium. These required green components do not willingly join the green cult movement. To have your treasured EV, this planet must be mined and those elements must be extracted and refined. Due to the same chemical erosion thru use mentioned throughout this chapter, these batteries have an eight year or 100,000 mile warranty period. You can save $450 per year on gasoline if you spend $450 per year on a battery.

You can walk forever up the down escalator and still get nowhere. There is no way to improve or even ‘sustain’ our carbon-based life forms without expending some geologically stored carbon energy. There is likewise not enough molecular stored energy in Earth elements to provide sustainable solar or battery driven ‘green life style’. To the blue-green Hollywood Eco-Smurfs and Na’vi wannabe’s, we are NOT living on a green Pandora that needs rescue from the evil RDA mining company. Humanity will not be saved by mythical noble savages or a forced return to a primitive life style. It took most of the nineteenth century to formulate the Laws of Thermodynamics. It took most of the twentieth century to apply those laws to the benefit of society. There will be no solutions to problems in the twenty first century that do not comply with these laws. It is time to awaken your friends and family to the futility of the Green Utopia. Humanity does not need to be plunged back into the darkness of their green hell.

The Geo-nuclear Connection By Joe Olson The search for scientific truth in one field often leads to unexpected insights into other fields. In researching the ignored or vastly underrated role of Earth’s nuclear fission in climate change another truth became self evident. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The proton, neutrons and electrons released during nuclear fission become ‘elemental’ atoms, as mentioned before in this chapter. Under the high heat and high pressure of the fission reactor the simplest of these atoms join into either diatomic atoms like Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen or into simple ‘elemental’ molecules. Since we have no direct knowledge of these processes, we must assume certain parameters about these reactions. It is first assumed that the Uranium fission occurs in the molten zone somewhere near the Iron crystal core. Uranium has one of the highest densities of any natural occurring element and in a ‘liquid’ suspension would sink to the lowest level. The lighter, elemental atoms and compounds produced by fission at this great depth would naturally form bubble tracks thru the molten rock. The diatomic gases, along with elemental water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulfide would then rise up into solidified rock formations beneath the Earth’s crust. There is a ring of under-floor ocean ‘thermal vents’ between 1000 and 2200 meters (3000 and 7000 ft) deep in every ocean on the planet. Some bubble tracts may lead directly from the production zone to the vents, but it is safe to assume that most elemental gasses rise in to pockets where heat and pressure would allow forming of larger molecules, including hydrocarbons.

Acknowledging this fact is a double dilemma for the ‘environmentalists’ because hydrocarbons then become ‘renewable’ and using petroleum becomes environmentally friendly. Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, in the late 19th century proposed that petroleum products could be formed by chemical processes, independent of buried organic biomass. This theory was further expanded by Russian scientists in the 1950’s with their abiogenic theory of natural petroleum production. At the same time that Dr M. King Hubbert was fashioning his Malthus based “Peak Oil Theory”, claiming pending end of a finite resource. In the seventies, Professor Thomas Gold presented his version of the Russian theory. Both of the Russian and Gold abiogenic theories were disproven by actual drilled wells. The original Russian theory was that under heat and pressure ‘rocks decomposed’ into the molecules of Hydrocarbons that then rise into the rock bound reserve locations. Dr Gold then added that subterranean microbes created petroleum in these reserves. Two specially drilled wells failed to find the Gold microbes in any samples, which Gold blamed on operator error. In the seventies there was a rush to drill down to the mantle/crust interface to determine actual Earth conditions. The deepest hole in this experiment was the Russian Kola drill site which provided a surprising Earth science clue. The Russians were able to reach over 40,000 ft deep against enormous heat and pressure, which required new drilling technology. Keeping 12 Km (8 miles) of drill stem working proved impossible, so the Russians developed a drill bit that was driven by drilling mud pumped from above.

To remain liquid, drilling muds must have a boiling point above the ambient and drill friction generated boiling point. The ambient temperature for this 40,000 ft deep hole was approaching 175oC (350oF) and high boiling point, oil based drilling muds were being destroyed by water from the rock structures. Water could not be produced from rock decay so it was declared as ‘elemental’ water. This condition provides the missing clue for solving the “Abiogenic Oil Theory” that had not been included in the faulty Russian and Gold theories. The Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon atoms necessary for Earth’s natural Hydrocarbon production are from ‘elemental’ fission production. The molecular bonding creates a number of ‘elemental’ atoms into simple ‘elemental’ molecules including Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Dihydrogen Monoxide (water). These simple molecules then rise into stable rock reservoirs where heat and pressure, in a reverse fractional distillation process, form the longer Hydrocarbon chains. The solvent nature of these compounds then absorbs organic rock material, giving an organic fingerprint. Rising Methane and other Hydrocarbons which permeate into buried organic sediment layers can then convert this former biomass into coal. The thin cooled Earth crust acts as a lid on these gases which escape at the point of least resistance, that ring of ocean floor vents mentioned before. With no way to quantify the fission rate or the by-products ratio, we are left to guess at what the Earth’s average Hydrocarbon production rate actually is, but it is certain that OIL is a renewable resource. Completely depleted oil fields in the United States have refilled to as much as 1/3 of original capacity, a tantalizing clue on planetary production rates. That is bad enough news for warmists and environmentalists, but it only gets worse.

California is blessed with interesting place names from its multicultural heritage. Pismo Beach is named after the Chumah Indian word for ‘globs of tar’ due to natural Hydrocarbon outflow found on this beach. The Spanish Portola Expedition in 1769 discovered “molten geysers of tar” at the present day La Brea tar pits in downtown Los Angeles. La Brea is Spanish for tar. Tar still oozes from the ground at La Brea, down now to about 10 gallons per day. Globs of tar still wash up at Pismo Beach, but are now blamed on man’s failed drilling or shipping efforts. While Earths Hydrocarbon production does not appear finite in the near term, there is one thing that is FINITE. The Earth only has a finite storage capacity for this daily petroleum production. This is a double blow to the Eco-wackos. Oil is a renewable resource and man’s harvesting of this resource, may be of actual benefit to the eco-system. As horrible as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster was, the total spill has been estimated at only four times the annual ‘seepage’ rate. The naturally occurring bacteria that are disposing of BP’s mess have been dealing with this natural outflow of Hydrocarbons for millions of years. One interesting theory on the Bermuda Triangle involves sudden release of underground Methane. Water pressure increases with depth at the rate of one atmosphere of pressure for every 33 ft of depth. A one cubic foot gas bubble released at 5,000 ft depth under the ocean would swell to 150 cubic feet burst at the surface. Huge bubbles rising under an unsuspecting surface vessel would break the hull and cause instantaneous sinking. Once above the surface, the lighter than air Methane cloud would disperse and rise into the atmosphere. At some point this cloud would reach optimum stoichiometric ratio and be subject to a massive explosion.

Low flying aircraft are full of ignition sources and hitting this invisible Methane cloud would cause a massive explosion. Even formations of aircraft would disappear in an instant fireball, leaving no oil slick and little floating debris. If a tree falls in the forest it matters not whether there is any sound. That fallen tree represents a potential resource. Man can fashion that tree into useful products or he can burn the cellulose material and recover chemically stored solar energy. Or man can chose to let that tree rot in the forest or be subject to accidental fires. There is nothing inherently superior to the ‘burn or rot in the forest’ option. The outcome is exactly the same with regard to the wood. Portions are returned to the air as carbon dioxide and portions are returned to the soil as ash or dust. The question becomes, is the planet better off if humans ‘control’ the forest or if fire, insects and disease control the forest? And so it is with humanity’s newly discovered renewable resource. Will humanity harvest and use this resource or will over-funded pressure groups and expanding government forces overwhelm reason and force unneeded control of this newly recognized renewable resource? It is pretty obvious that to harvest this ‘petroleum’ tree, humanity must confront some dreadful Eco-insects and mindless government microbes. The mention of microbes brings up another interesting subject, introduced here and further developed in the near future. The first study of biology as being distinct from inert matter was under Aristotle, Theophrastos and Herophilos in 300 BC. Not much improvement came until the invention of the microscope in the mid 17th century. Robert Hooke first showed the world the multi-celled structure of visible life forms and then Anton van Leeuwenhock showed the world single celled life forms.

In the 1960’s science divided these into two families, the Bacteria and Eukaryota, which included the four kingdoms of plants, animals, fungi and protists. Imagine the shock when a decade later Dr Carl Woese described a new family, Archaea with a completely different life cycle and environmental adaption. Archaea are genetically different from bacteria and live a life cycle independent of photosynthesis. These organisms produce Methane as a waste product and have been found in ocean floor vents, hot water geysers and digestive tracts of termites and marine animals. The presence of Archaea at under-floor ocean vents has lead to speculation that the vast Methane Clathrate deposits world-wide are from this micro-organism. Further study of the Geo-nuclear process may dispel this thought. Methane Clathrate is most recently known as the ‘ice plug’ that prevented the recovery efforts at the BP Deepwater Horizon accident. Under the pressures of a mile of seawater, Methane emerges as a liquid and is encapsulated by the near freezing water to form a crystal of water with 20% Methane. Reasonable estimates are that this ocean stored Methane exceeds known reserves by at least double and perhaps ten times the known geologic reserves. By positioning recovery funnels over the existing thermal vents, it would be possible to harvest these crystals with Geo-thermal heat. Robotic collectors would deliver Clathrate crystal blocks to this ‘boiler’ releasing the gas into the funnel and recovery tube riser.

These Clathrate deposits contain higher than ‘normal’ levels of isotropic Carbon 13 giving rise to speculation of ‘organic’ origins for these deposits. What is considered normal is the terrestrial view of Carbon isotope distribution. This ratio is based on cosmic ray causing decay of first Nitrogen 14 into Carbon 14. One inherent error in using this as an organic measure of age is that cosmic rays are assumed constant. Another is that natural ‘elemental’ Carbon isotope ratios have any relationship to terrestrial sources. Freshly killed penguins and seals in the Antarctic show Carbon 14 dating ages of thousands of years. Methane and all petroleum deposits on the planet show a wide range of isotopes of Carbon. The most probable explanation is that elemental production of all fission based atoms is not based on Earth surface conditions or distributions. It is time to rethink what we know about Geology and Nuclear Physics. It is ironic that the study of the flawed science of Climatology would cause such an epic revision to theories on the fundamental processes deep within the Earth. We have now come to the end of our discussion on the astronomical, geological, nuclear and political forces that have shaped this most interesting of scientific debates This team of Slayers have all recognized that the English Scientific Method has been the single greatest force for improving our human condition in all of history. We are fighting to preserve that great 350 year old tradition.

Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right at The Surface

By Tim Ball Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface. Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated. Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems. Movement of heat from within the earth is different primarily because of circulation. Solar energy penetrates up to 50 meters into the ocean while it hardly penetrates the soil at all. It takes much more energy to raise the temperature of water than land, but it also cools much slower.

Rates of evaporation - that is molecules of water that are given enough velocity by heat energy to escape the surface - are also very different. There is an unlimited supply of molecules in the oceans. Since this is the major source of energy transfer to the atmosphere, it is critical to weather and climate. Figure 1 shows atmospheric layers. It shows the boundaries (interfaces) above the surface, such as the Tropopause and the Stratopause but leaves out the major critical interface between the atmosphere and the earth. These boundaries separate by temperature, but you can use other measures. The term atmosphere is an example because it encompasses the entire region to the edge of space and is different from the lithosphere and hydrosphere. It also includes the thinnest but most important zone, the biosphere. It is a very narrow zone that contains virtually all life on the planet yet is mostly within a few meters of the surface. What happens here is critical to weather and climate as Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) recognized in his remarkable work Climate Near The Ground, published in 1950. In weather and climate research it is akin to the Boundary Layer and an early book by R. E. Munn identified its dynamics and importance.

Figure 1: Atmosphere layers determined by temperature and pressure A measure of the failure of modern climate science is that there is a Wikipedia entry for Geiger but it is a single line and asks for expansion. His book has been updated and a sixth edition with two other authors is now available. Others like Sellers and Oke produced useful research, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignore the entire issue. They make an incorrect understatement. Temperature changes are one of the more obvious and easily measured changes in climate, but

atmospheric moisture, precipitation and atmospheric circulation also change, as the whole system is affected. No, temperatures may be obvious but they are not an easily measured change in climate. The comment also fails to acknowledge that changes in temperature are a direct input to changes in the other variables. Officially, but incorrectly, it’s called the surface temperature. Actually, it is atmospheric temperature in a ventilated box called a Stevenson Screen that can be between 1.25 and 2 meters above the surface. The significance of this is shown in a graph (Figure 2) of temperatures. Those at 2.5 centimeters are quite different in degree and daily range than even 1.2 meters. This converts to dramatically different monthly and annual averages that are climate. For example, one station in Ohio had a full 90 days difference in the length of the frost-free season at the ground or at 1.5 meters. A crop such as barley can grow in that length of time. Apart from heat exchange at the surface there is the issue of evaporation. The atmosphere is heated in three different ways. First is conduction as molecules of air touching the surface are heated by direct contact. Second is convection as these heated molecules rise by convection or are moved away by the wind (advection). Third, and the most important but underestimated way, especially in the tropics, is evaporation. The latter is directly determined by temperature right at the surface not 1.5 meter above.

Figure 2: Daily range of temperatures at different heights in summer Source: Oliver and Hidore, After Geiger 1950. All the discussion and measures are about bare surfaces, but it is never that simple. Changes in the color and the texture make a difference. Most life forms are within that 1.5 meters; add vegetation and it changes the entire dynamics. In a bizarre instruction, an early technical report for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said: in order to set up a weather station for a forest you begin by clearing a 200 meter site. Of course, you’re no longer measuring the weather or determining the climate of a forest. Change wind speed, and the dynamics change becoming even more complicated. Vegetation makes it especially difficult over land. This is matched by the complications of changes in

the ocean surface with everything from ripples to large waves altering the surface area and angle at which sunlight strikes. The list of complications goes on and on. For example, what happens to global energy when snow covers large areas of the northern hemisphere and varies in extent from year to year? Or how snow is deeper in vegetated areas? Do they consider the heat energy that passes through polar sea ice to warm the atmosphere? Gases moving across the interface are critical to climate research. We have few and only recent measures. As a 2006 report noted, “In the last few years, more and more research has focused on the biosphere; particularly, on how gases which influence the climate are exchanged between the biosphere and atmosphere.” They were amazed to find how much methane was released from the rainforest. There are virtually no studies for deserts, grasslands or tundra. For example, we know oceans are critical to amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Surface station numbers are inadequate and they’re not measuring what is necessary for understanding changes in weather and climate. But none of this is important to the IPCC who only wants the results to support the political conclusion.

Climate Change Hysteria Falters. Water is the New Target By Tim Ball Self-proclaimed environmentalists and people who use the environment as a vehicle for political control, often the same people, have not quite destroyed environmentalism. They are running out of exotic scares as coral bleaching, ocean acidification and a multitude of other claims prove unwarranted. A sign of desperation is the shift to much larger targets, but they pose the problem that people know a little more and basic questions raise immediate doubts. Water is the latest target. More and more stories about running out of water appear. Most are linked to the false claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that droughts will increase in severity with global warming. It’s illogical because higher temperatures mean increased evaporation and more moisture in the air to create precipitation, but that doesn’t stop them. It’s part of the ongoing standard chain that links too many people with too many demands on limited resources causing environment collapse. The real goal is total political control, the shut down of industry and ultimately elimination of people. Water Is Not A Problem There is no shortage. As with climate and all the other issues used to panic people, there is lack of information and understanding. I know from chairing public hearings on water how it raises passions. Wars have been fought and future

conflicts are possible because of the unequal distribution, but none of this is necessary. Science incorrectly assumes the oceans have remained essentially unchanged for 600 million years. The theory is that as the Earth cooled the various elements settled out in layers according their specific gravity. Water is used as the base with a specific gravity of one. The error of the claim of constant volume is that every time a volcano erupts more water vapor is released into the atmosphere adding to the total. There is another contentious claim that water comes from space. “The main discoverer of the cosmic snowstorm, Dr. Louis A. Frank, whose initial hypothesis was ridiculed when he presented it in 1986, now says with great confidence that the terrestrial bombardment could easily have supplied all the planet’s water and perhaps also many of the chemicals that are essential for life.” “If the flux has been similar over geologic time, say, over four billion years, then it very closely accounts for the oceans we have now, including the ice caps,” Dr. Frank, a physicist at the University of Iowa, said in an interview.” Evidence of water on the moon seems to support this theory. The Water Cycle So there is no agreement on how water is on the planet. Measures of the amounts and distributions are also totally inadequate. Approximately 97 percent is salt water and 3 percent freshwater, and there is constant movement between the two.

Figure 1: The Water Cycle showing the general flow of water in the Earth System. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_cycle.png Figure 1 shows the general pattern of water disposition and movement known as the Water Cycle. We have no real measures of the distribution of the freshwater other than general percentages about the amount in glaciers, lakes and groundwater. There are inadequate measures of flow in most rivers and even fewer for groundwater volumes and flows. A major component of the system that drives transfer of heat from the surplus in the tropics to the deficit in the Polar Regions is evaporation, transport and condensation. Solar energy strikes the surface in the tropics and most of the energy is absorbed, but a portion is used to increase the rate of evaporation. The energy is not lost but stored as latent energy in the water vapor molecule. Most of this occurs in great cloud developments called cumulonimbus or thunderstorm clouds. These are massive systems, but the grid system of the

computer models is so crude that they cannot be encompassed. The water vapor is transported and released back into the atmosphere when condensation occurs. This is why temperature rises when it rains or snows. The energy in all its forms is carried up and distributed poleward by upper level winds. Global temperature data is grossly inadequate, precipitation measures are even worse. The modern record is virtually non-existent and historic record worse. Consider this comment about Africa. “One obvious problem is a lack of data. Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.” The quote is an article about trying to predict the critical monsoon in the Sahel region of Africa. Climate scientists cannot say what has delayed the monsoon this year or whether the delay is part of a larger trend. Nor do they fully understand the mechanisms that govern rainfall over the Sahel. Most frustrating, perhaps, is that their prognostic tools - computer simulations of future climate - disagree on what lies ahead. We’re told the science is settled because they want the public to believe it. A recent request for more data tells you that we know little about the oceans. They are a massive source of moisture and energy and critical for precipitation over the land. “Scientists are urging governments around the world to invest in a ocean-based system that could provide warnings of droughts, floods and other environmental disasters.” “Trevor Platt, a marine biologist with the Partnership for Observation of Global Oceans, says the system of devices would cost up to $15 billion.” So too much water, flooding, or too little,

drought, are not adequately measured. No wonder the IPCC computer model predictions of the climate are wrong every single time. Water is very attractive to alarmists and those who seek bigger government because it is so fundamental to life. It is the one resource that essentially remains classified as a public good, which means it’s easier for government to control. It’s also why the World Bank is involved in large-scale water projects.

Climate Science Corruption: Practiced and Perpetuated by Scientific Societies By Tim Ball A recent Pew Center poll shows public concern about global warming continues very low and even declining slightly. They’ve been there for a year now as comparison of their 2009/2010 results show. The most significant shift is in Energy, which dropped from 60 to 49 percent. Partly due to the declining gas prices, but also lower concern about failure of the basic energy sources and reduced threat of carbon taxes. People pushing or accepting the false science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are reacting. Responses reveal agendas are political not science. Obama’s White House leads the charge, but all governments continue to pursue policies that make them appear green, while ignoring the facts. The policies are unnecessary, extremely expensive, and economically destructive. The real motive is increased taxation and government control. For some, like Obama, it’s about total government control and destruction of the industrial based economy

Lord May led a major part of the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. It began with the UK Royal Society and they persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. Some, like the Russian Academy climatologist Yuri Israel protested but was quickly pushed aside. At a climate meeting, “The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”. (Source) It became part of the consensus argument still used by some.

Consider the view of US National Academy of Sciences member Peter Gleick. His article, “Climate-change deniers versus the scientific societies of the world: Who should we listen to?” is a classic. It’s problematic when a scientist doesn’t know that consensus is not a scientific fact or the basis for a scientific argument. Fortunately some scientists within the various societies and academies are beginning to protest, demanding retractions and revisions. Already suspicious and galvanized by the events revealed by the leaked emails from the Climatic research unit (CRU), the British public and science community was ahead of the world in recognizing the scam that is official climate science. As a result, they are in the forefront of demanding more reasonable positions. “The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages. They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.” They still don’t denounce the entire fraud, but it’s hard to acknowledge serious error, especially if you still don’t understand the science Harold Lewis Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California and former member of the American Physical Society (APS) understands and dropped a nuclear bomb recently, He is “former” because he tendered his resignation in a devastating letter. “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Anyone who has the slightest doubt that this is so should read the Climategate documents, which lay it bare. I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that word revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.” Perpetrators of the pseudoscience and some of their supporters continue to try and maintain the fraud. No doubt they’re emboldened by the despicable cover-ups orchestrated by governments and universities. As Lewis notes, funding corrupts them. “I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago.” “Your own Physics department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Michael Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.” One of the first scientists to publicly and professionally identify the corrupt science was Professor Edward Wegman. His report to the US Senate Committee investigating the hockey stick scandal identified the incestuous group publishing together, peer-reviewing each others work and controlling and bypassing the peer-review process. Now there are attempts to discredit him by accusations of plagiarism. William Connolley is a, politically-driven, founding member of Realclimate, a web site set up to control and develop propaganda for the CRU group.

His main task was control of 500 Wikipedia climate entries. They supposedly removed his editorial control, but it appears that’s not the case. He’s still removing material he doesn’t like. Gavin Schmidt is an employee of NASA GISS, the agency run by environmental activist James Hansen, Schmidt was actively involved and appeared to spend an inordinate amount of time with Realclimate for a bureaucrat. He recently participated in a project with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) titled, “Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate.” His involvement, after all the disclosures of Climategate is ridiculous, but no less than the entire exercise. Schmidt has a reputation of inaccuracy and less than full disclosure. It wasn’t about science at all, but a lesson in how to further deceive and exploit fear. It’s an outrage that a scientific organization doesn’t know that science is about skepticism and all scientists must be skeptics. But their objective was even more disgraceful. “Panelists will share their best practices for public and media engagement, debate how to respond to critiques, and explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue.” It wasn’t about science at all, but a lesson in how to further deceive and exploit fear. Schmidt’s record shows he is well qualified on those topics. Lewis said the APS went along with the corruption accepting it as the norm.

The AAAS goes further by providing methods and mechanisms for perpetuating “the most successful pseudoscientific fraud.” If you remain a member of AAAS or any other association and don’t speak out against such falsity and corruption then you condone the actions and activities. Speak out or watch science self-destruct.

The Earth’s Gravitational Field and Near Sea Level Atmospheric Temperatures By Charles R. Anderson The primary source of warmth for the Earth is radiant energy provided by our Sun. Just as the Sun radiates energy into space, the Earth, being warmer than space, also radiates energy out into space. Most of the energy it radiates into space is in the form of infra-red radiation, though light is a contributor as well. The Earth will radiate about the same amount of energy into space as it receives from the Sun on average. The Earth is often called a black body radiator, though this is not technically correct. The energy equilibrium with the Sun ignores some heat from the Earth’s core, energy due to the Earth’s magnetic field interactions with the magnetic field of the Sun, gravitational tide effects due to the moon, or energy due to material from space entering our atmosphere at high speeds. It is commonly claimed by those who advocate catastrophic global warming due to man’s emissions of carbon dioxide that the total greenhouse gas effect is a warming of the Earth’s surface by about 33ºC. They say this warming is caused by the infra-red (IR) radiation absorbing gases of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere. These gases are said to cause the Earth to retain and even multiply the energy it receives from the Sun, so that the Earth’s surface is warmer than it would otherwise be. Of these gases, water vapor is much the most important, but carbon dioxide is said to have a large enough effect that man’s additions to the concentrations in the atmosphere will do serious harm to the Earth’s flora and fauna, as well as man himself.

That CO2 might have such a big effect is due to a gross exaggeration of the total effect of the atmosphere’s IR-absorbing gases. The exaggerated scale of the effect comes from the observation that the temperature of the Earth as seen from space is about 33ºC cooler than the average temperature of the Earth’s surface. That entire temperature difference is attributed by them to the greenhouse gas effect, or the effect of IR-absorbing gases. Exaggerating that effect allows them to exaggerate the effect of man’s emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. This chapter will discuss the real sources of the 33ºC difference between the average temperature of the Earth’s surface and its radiation temperature as seen from space, with primary focus on the contribution of the Earth’s gravitational field. Back in 1976, before the politicization of the Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming hypothesis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the United States Air Force collaborated on a project to calculate the properties for a U.S. Standard Atmosphere as a function of altitude. They calculated the temperature, pressure, density, and molecular speeds, among other parameters for an ideal gas in the Earth’s gravitational field as a function of altitude. "The equations used are those adopted 15 October 1976 by the United States Committee on Extension to the Standard Atmosphere (COESA), representing 29 U.S. scientific and engineering organizations. The values selected in 1976 are slight modifications of those adopted in 1962. The equations and parameters used are documented in a book entitled U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976 published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C."

The tables are based on rocket and satellite data and perfect gas theory to provide atmospheric densities and temperatures from -5,000 meters below sea level to 1000 kilometers altitude. Below 32 kilometers altitude, the U.S. Standard Atmosphere is identical with the Standard Atmosphere of the International Civil Aviation Organization. My copy of these tables is in the 71st Edition of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics for 1990 - 1991. The preface to the table says: “The U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976 is an idealized, steady-state representation of the earth's atmosphere from the surface to 1000 km, as it is assumed to exist in a period of moderate solar activity. The air is assumed to be dry, and at heights sufficiently below 86 km, the atmosphere is assumed to be homogeneously mixed with a relative-volume composition leading to a mean molecular weight M. The molecular weights and assumed fractional-volume composition of sea-level dry air were” and a list of the gas molecules followed. I will leave out the molecular weights and just give the gas molecules, their fractional volumes, and the translation of the chemical symbol. N2, 0.78084, nitrogen O2, 0.209476, oxygen Ar, 0.00934, argon CO2, 0.000314, carbon dioxide [Note this is less than the usual fraction used now] Ne, 0.00001818, neon He, 0.00000524, helium Kr, 0.00000114, krypton Xe, 0.000000087, xenon CH4, 0.000002, methane H2, 0.00000005, hydrogen

For many purposes, the molecules of the atmosphere are well-represented by an ideal gas model. Note again that the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor and it is left out entirely. Now let us list some values for the temperature, pressure, density, and speed of the average gas molecule of molecular weight M for various altitudes as calculated from the volume fractions in this U.S. Standard Atmosphere. They are given in the table below:

Ideal Gas Parameters for the U. S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976

Altitude (m)

Temperature (K)

Tempera ture

relative to Sea Level (K or ºC)

Press ure

(bars)

Density (molecules/1025

m3)

Mole cular Speed (m/s)

5000 255.676 -32.474 0.5405 1.5312 432.31

0 Sea

Level

288.150 0 1.0132 2.5470 458.94

-500 291.400 3.250 1.0747 2.6715 461.53

-5000 320.676 32.526 1.7776 4.0151 484.15

The temperature at sea level here is 288.15Kelvin, which is 15.00ºC, and a change of 1K, equals a change of 1ºC. This temperature will vary with the time of year and the time of day. The change of temperature will then shift the values of this table as the sea level temperature changes from the near average value of 15ºC. The main source of energy affecting this sea level temperature is solar radiation, which is affected by the time of day, the time of year, cloud cover, the humidity,

volcanic ash and aerosols, and industrial and transportation aerosols. Energy also comes from the Earth's hot interior, the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the sun's magnetic field, the solar wind, debris from space, the decay of radioactive elements, and the gravitational effects of the moon. These sources of energy can shift the sea level temperature relative to that given in this table, but then other values will shift with it. The very fluid atmosphere will seek out an equilibrium temperature distribution as a function of altitude for each such sea level temperature. It will do this by means of gas molecule collisions, convection, radiation, and evaporation or sublimation of water. With a sea level temperature of 288.15K or 15ºC, this table gives the values of other parameters which represent the equilibrium condition. Now let us note that the black body temperature of the Earth as seen from space is 255K. This is almost identical to the temperature of the Standard Atmosphere at an altitude of 5000 m. Thus, the effective altitude at which radiative cooling of the atmosphere takes place with respect to space is 5000 m. Above about 4000 m, radiative cooling becomes the dominant mechanism, so the effective altitude should be higher than that as this implies. Now, the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis claims that the reason the temperature at sea level is 288K, rather than 255K, is because greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, and methane absorb the long wavelength IR radiation from the sunlight heated surface of the Earth and re-emit half of it back to the ground. That "extra" radiation heats the Earth's surface to a temperature 33K higher than it would otherwise be. Let us now take a look at the below sea level temperatures of this ideal gas with no water vapor. The lowest open area on the surface of the Earth's land masses is the Dead Sea shore.

The altitude there is about -413 m, or 413 meters below sea level. At -500 m, the temperature would be 3.25K higher than at sea level according to this table. Interpolating from the table, the temperature at -413 m would be about 2.68 C or K warmer than it would be at sea level. Indeed, the Dead Sea area is very often warmer than the surrounding sea level areas. This tends to be true of other areas below sea level also. Yet, there is no reason to think that IR emissions from the surface and their capture by water vapor and CO2 should be very different, so this suggests that the mechanism of IR-absorbing gases is not the primary reason for any temperature difference between the Dead Sea and the surrounding sea level areas. Why does the table give values down to -5000 m altitude? Because the table is of value to deep mine engineers who have to deal with air ventilation in deep mines. Deep mines become warm primarily because the surrounding rock becomes warm due to the Earth’s high core temperature, which also means that some of the energy at the Earth’s surface causing it to be warm is due to heat from the core. Deep mines also become warm due to the effect of gravity on air molecules! That effect is an important effect and has to be taken into account. Let us see how important the U.S. Standard Atmosphere tables imply it is. At -5000 m, the temperature of the standard atmosphere is given in the table as 320.676K, which is 32.526 K or C higher than the temperature at sea level and at atmospheric pressure. Now note that this is almost the same temperature increase that the surface of the Earth has relative to the altitude with the same temperature as its effective ‘black body’ radiation temperature, that is, 5000 m. Now the bottom of a mine shaft 5000 m deep does not have any sunlight being absorbed and it is not emitting IR because sunlight has warmed it only to have much of that energy

radiated as IR which is reflected back onto the bottom of the mine. No, the higher temperature of the atmosphere at the bottom of the mine shaft is due to the higher kinetic energy of gas molecules that comes from them having about as much less potential energy in the Earth’s gravitational field compared to sea level as those at sea level have compared to the potential energy at 5000 meters altitude. An ideal gas molecule at a lower altitude has as much more kinetic energy compared to a molecule at higher altitude as that higher altitude molecular has more potential energy. Recalling high school physics, the total energy of a mass M in the Earth’s gravitational field near the surface is E = ½ Mv2 + Mgh, where g is 9.8 m/s2 and h is an altitude small compared to the radius of the Earth. This is an approximation of course. The U.S. Standard Atmosphere tables include the variation of g with altitude. At sea level it is 9.8066 m/s2, while at 5000 m altitude it is 9.7912 m/s2, for instance. This instance of conservation of energy is very important because the temperature of an ideal gas is proportional to the square of its particle velocity, which is proportional to its kinetic energy. The ideal gas law is PV = nRT. P is the pressure, V is the volume, n is the number of moles of the gas in the volume, R is a constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. Let's go down our mine shaft. Let's say it is 5000 m deep and we will calculate the average T for each horizontal slab 1 meter tall as we go down the shaft. Assuming the air density is increasing as the pressure increases, we know that n is proportional to the air density and increasing. It is not constant as in your simple high school science class calculations. The tables show us that this is the case. Now if the pressure, P, were proportional to this density, then T would remain constant. It is not, however.

The pressure P is proportional to the product of the density and the kinetic energy of the molecule. This is why T for the ideal gas is proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules. So, the temperature change upon going 5000 m below sea level is about a 33K increase, while the temperature change on going from 5000 m altitude to sea level is about a 33K increase. Now if the temperature at sea level is due to greenhouse gas effects smuggled into the table by the use of some inputs from rocket and satellite data, then the temperature increase values in the table for below sea level should be nonsense. Yet similar tables were generated in 1958, 1962, 1966, and 1976. This table is still widely used. Over those years, deep mine engineers would surely have had input to correct the values of temperature for the below sea level entries if they did not hold up in their calculations for mine heat management and temperature, pressure, and air density measurements. Or would they? We will discuss this more. Let us illustrate this mining application problem. The Tau Tona gold mine in South Africa is 11,760 feet deep or 3,584.4 meters deep. The air in the mine reaches a temperature of 130 F. The gravitationally determined air temperature at that depth is 311.46K or 38.31ºC or 100.96ºF as interpolated from the full table of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere given in 500 meter altitude increments. Clearly the rock wall temperature is higher than the temperature of air in gravitational equilibrium in this deep mine. The air at sea level from the table is at 288.15K or 59ºF. The mine engineer would love to bring this air at 59ºF down to the bottom of the mine and be able to keep it at 59ºF as he does so. Air at 59ºF would be much more effective in cooling the bottom of the mine than is air at 101ºF.

But, even if the mine engineer flows this air down to the bottom of the mine in well-insulated pipes, it is still in the Earth's gravitational field. So, he can keep it from being warmed much by the very warm rock walls of the mine, but he cannot keep it from rising to a temperature of 101ºF, according to the tables! When he calculates the necessary air flow to achieve a given cooler temperature in the bottom of the deep mine, he should be very aware of the temperature increase in the air due to bringing it down to that depth. So, if the increased gas molecule kinetic energy in the atmosphere at -5000 m creates an increase in temperature of about 33º C, then the increased gas density and kinetic energy in the atmosphere at sea level compared to that at 5000 m, is also responsible for the 33ºC increase in temperature at the surface of the Earth compared to its black body radiation temperature of 255K and the temperature of air at 5000 meters altitude according to the logic of the tables. That the temperature of a gas in a gravitational field increases as the strength of the field increases is further confirmed by the temperature and pressure relationships to altitude of the other planets with gaseous atmospheres or compositions. The actual gases vary widely as does the amount of radiation incident upon them from the sun. The reflectivities of those gases also differ greatly. Despite that, as the pressure increases as one moves deeper into the gas atmosphere of each planet, the temperature increases. When the gravitational field is extremely high, as in the case of Jupiter, the temperatures become extremely high in the interior. Yet, Jupiter receives a pitiful 50.5 watts/sq. m of solar radiation compared to the Earth's incident solar radiation of 1368 W/sq. m.

The examples of the gaseous planets being heated by gravitational field effects have often been presented by critics of the greenhouse gas hypothesis with no effective reply. Somehow, the Earth is different. On the Earth, only man-made effects are claimed to be important. Now we can bring this back closer to home again. The materials at the core of the Earth are extremely hot due to the very high pressures caused by the very high gravitational field strength there. The molten core liquids heat up due to high pressure, but the gases of the Earth's atmosphere do not? We should be asking the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis advocates why liquids under pressure become very hot, but a gas under increased pressure in a gravitational field does not? You may want to ask where the energy is coming from that is heating the gas deep in the mine shaft. The gas at the surface of the Earth has a potential energy due to gravity. The gas at the bottom of the mine shaft has a lower potential energy, with the difference in energy converted into a higher kinetic energy because energy is conserved. The gas molecules therefore have a higher mean velocity. The gas temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules, so it also goes up. The effect on the pressure is that it goes up as the number density of the molecules goes up and it also goes up in proportion to the increase in kinetic energy. The pressure is increasing faster than either n or T. In fact it is increasing as the product of these two increasing properties, as stated in the ideal gas law, PV = nRT. Note that the temperature does not depend on any flow of gases, according to the tables. It only depends upon the kinetic energy of the air molecules, which is a function of the strength of the Earth's gravitational field at a given altitude.

The pressure has a more complex functionality, because it depends both on the strength of the gravitational field and the weight of the atmosphere above a given altitude. It is gravity which accounts for the increased pressure and density of the atmosphere at the bottom of the mine shaft. This is also where most of the energy comes from to heat the Earth's core or the atmosphere of Jupiter. But the pressure is proportional to the product of the density and the temperature and both are increasing, so the pressure is increasing faster than the density does. Alternatively, the temperature is proportional to the pressure divided by the density. Since the pressure is increasing faster than the density is, the temperature goes up as we go down the mine shaft. For the same reason, the temperature goes up as we go 5000 meters downward from the effective black body radiation altitude of about 5000 meters to the surface of the Earth. There is simply no need to posit a complex and unproven theory of greenhouse gas warming to explain why the surface of the Earth is 33ºC warmer than the black body temperature of the Earth as seen from space and as in equilibrium with the incident energy from the sun. The tables seem to imply the cause of this difference is the Earth’s gravitational field. However, despite the fact that one would think that the calculations of mine engineers would have confirmed or invalidated the table for below sea level air temperatures, we will find that the tables do imply a stronger gravitational field effect on the atmosphere than makes sense.

In my article called Do IR-Absorbing Gases Warm or Cool the Earth’s Surface?, I pointed out that: “If we assume that the sphere [at an altitude of 5000m] with the temperature of 255K is in equilibrium with a slightly smaller black body sphere of the radius of the Earth at sea level, we can calculate the temperature of that surface given that it must radiate a power equal to the power of the surrounding sphere which is in equilibrium with space. The temperature will be higher, since the surface area of the sphere is smaller. In fact, the temperature of the Earth’s surface as a black body would be 255.100K or 0.1ºC warmer than the sphere at the altitude of 5000 meters above sea level which is in equilibrium with space. But the Earth’s surface is not really a black body, so the Stefan-Boltzmann equation has to have an emissivity factor multiplied times the temperature side of the equation. For the Earth’s surface this emissivity factor is about 0.7 on average. This causes the Earth’s surface to have to be at the more elevated temperature of 278.89K to be in equilibrium. This is only about 9K or 9ºC below its usual temperature of 288K. Anything otherwise violates the Law of Energy Conservation.” So, the increased kinetic energy of air molecules at sea level when compared to that at the effective black body temperature of the Earth altitude of 5000m does not account for the 33K temperature difference despite the tables seeming implication. The effect is real, but its size must be exaggerated. Unless there are counteracting cooling effects, the gravitational temperature increase would be limited to about 9K when changing altitude from 5000m to sea level. There are countervailing cooling effects, so the gravitational effect may be larger than 9K, but it is unlikely to be as large as 33K.

Apparently, the tables did smuggle in effects due to other heating effects and then improperly projected those to the below sea level altitudes. Yet, mine engineers do attest to such an effect, but they have not apparently been effective in getting the U. S. Standard Atmosphere tables adjusted to any good scientific measurements of the effect. This is another of many examples of contributing warming effects which have not been properly taken into account by the climate models and which appears to have an inadequate basis in experimental measurements by physicists. There are still other sources of warming that can claim to contribute to the 9K remaining temperature increase at sea level. As mentioned above, one is the conduction of heat from the Earth’s core. Another is the retention of heat by the oceans with their very high heat capacity. The land surface also retains heat and releases it slowly as the brightest part of the day passes and is replaced with night. The atmosphere itself, especially when laden with water vapor, holds and retains considerable heat. These heat retention materials with significant heat capacities, even out the temperatures between day and night and when clouds momentarily block strong sunlight. In doing this, they raise the average temperature somewhat through the course of the day. At this time, the size of the average increased temperature contribution of each effect is not known, but they are each making a contribution.

The major difference between the sea level temperature and the effective altitude at which radiation into space balances the energy fluxes into and away from the Earth, a temperature difference of about 33ºC, is not properly attributed to greenhouse gases. These gases are gases that absorb IR radiation effectively. The main greenhouse gas is water and CO2 and methane gas are minor greenhouse gases. Those who promote the idea that man's emissions of CO2 and methane are likely to cause catastrophic global warming, claim that these greenhouse gases are responsible for this substantial heating of the Earth's surface by an additional 33ºC. As we have seen here, this is not so. This argument does not mean that it is not possible for greenhouse gases to shift the sea level temperature a degree or two from the present average temperature or to influence the temperature through the course of a short time, such as between night and day. Whether there are such effects caused by IR-absorbing gases needs to be examined in other ways. What has been established here is other effects, including warming due to the Earth’s gravitational field on its atmosphere, make significant contributions to the warming usually attributed to greenhouse gas theory. Most of the warming is simply a radiative equilibrium having nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Some is due to gravitational effects on the gases of the atmosphere or on the Earth’s core. Some is due to heat retention by the materials near the Earth’s surface which have significant heat capacities. As I discussed in Do IR-Absorbing Gases Warm or Cool the Earth’s Surface? the effect of carbon dioxide and methane is a net cooling effect, not a warming effect. Water has a much more complex role because it can retain absorbed heat in ways that CO2 and methane cannot.

It is the main greenhouse gas, but it has many properties and many roles not well-described by that name. In many of those roles, it also acts to cool the surface by evaporation and sublimation. In fact, its cooling power is probably presently underestimated in climate models. Water vapor as a cloud former is not yet well-understood, as the nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays makes clear. Water and the IR-absorbing gases keep the Earth’s surface from becoming much warmer during the day when there is direct sunlight. Their role at night in net heat retention is very complex and is not yet understood at all well. Instead of creating evermore fanciful computer climate models, there are many real warming and cooling effects which will only be well-understood when good scientific measurements from well-designed experiments are performed. After a huge expenditure of monies and effort on global climate models it is clear that the basic science needed as input into such models is sadly lacking. The effort has been badly misplaced. Climate modeling without an adequate basis in the understanding of the physics of radiation and heat transfer and transport is pointless. It is very telling when well-known climate modelers make fun of physicists, chemists, geologists and engineers who take a look at the very effects which are essential inputs to their climate models.

Climate Reality: The Long View By Philip Foster There is no long term connection between CO2 and global temperature. In the short term when temperatures rise there is a lag of several hundred years before CO2 levels rise. This because oceans take a long time to warm. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.

NB: CO2 levels are currently close to the lowest they have been for 300 million years. If current CO2 levels were to halve, all plant life would die and humans with it!

CO2 is currently 0.038% of our atmosphere (compared to argon at 1%). Global temperatures have been on a long down-ward trend over the last six million years.

Based on ice core samples it is clearly evident global temperatures have been several degrees higher than now even as recent as the historical past. The current ‘rise’ of 0.5±0.3°C in the last forty years (this upward trend ceased 15 years ago and now shows signs of a decline) is therefore relatively trivial and certainly not abnormal. Note during the Roman Warm Period grapes were being grown in southern Scotland and in the Medieval Warm Period there were vineyards in Yorkshire.

We are not even as warm as we were 800 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity.

The Medieval Warm Period proved to be of high embarrassment to the UN IPCC.

In 2001 they published the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which they subsequently had to drop in 2006, although it continues to be promoted by climate alarmists.

As can be seen the reality is very different.

The above graph is based on a large collection of ground based weather stations. It looks moderately alarming but in reality verges on the meaningless as the next graph below illustrates.

A possible change in average temperature of about 0.7°C in 120 years is no basis for alarm. On earth daily temperatures can fluctuate by as much as 40°C in some areas (deserts are good example). In addition the accuracy of many weather station thermometers is in considerable doubt: many are poorly maintained and are sited in unsuitable places (such as airports and buildings subject to the Urban Heat Island effect - not readily perceived seemingly by climate alarmists) for gathering a global ‘temperature’.

A new array of free drifting ocean going buoys with sophisticated temperature sensors (ARGO*)has recently been deployed but it will be many years before any useful data analysis becomes available, even though initial data indicate a slight cooling of the oceans. *http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ The graph below shows how the UN IPCC team pulled part of what can only be construed as further fraud.

In culling weather stations they conveniently removed stations located in the coldest areas. E.g. Bolivia, a mountainous cold country in the Andes, vanished from their ‘map’ and instead it was ‘averaged’ between the coast of Peru and the Amazon basin. All that the UN IPCC can rely on now for its climate alarmism are the computer models. These are essentially two-dimensional ‘discs’ employed to model the earth‘s climate using simplistic ideas and guesswork. They are, in effect, ‘flat-earth’ models.

They are so inadequate that in attempting to introduce mountains the air currents passing over them broke the sound barrier! They epitomize that oft applied saying about computers, “Garbage in, garbage out”. Our climate is quite beyond human influence. The main factors are: the sun‘s variability and activity, the lunar orbit, and our varying position in the solar system and in the galaxy. On the earth the clouds and ocean currents control the overall temperature (not the other way round) and they respond primarily to these extra-terrestrial influences. If you really want to worry, then worry about the next big ice age - due quite soon! They last around 80,000 years, interglacials (one of which we are now in) last between 12,000 and 20,000 years (maximum).

A Lesson on Basic Physics By Hans Schreuder, August 2010 If we eliminated, worldwide, all anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) the atmospheric concentration would only reduce by 11-12 ppmv taking us back to the 2003 level when it was warmer than 2008. See table below and the subsequent graph concerning this analysis. These clearly show CO2 concentration is not warming the earth. If we removed almost twice that amount (20 ppmv) we would go back to the 1998 level. It was warmer in 1998 than in 2008 (by ~0.6 C). This is so simple to see, isn't this the first thing the UN IPCC should have looked at. However, they probably knew this because Table 1 below was subsequently eliminated from the 2001 report, even though it is still online in other reports. TABLE 1. GLOBAL SOURCES AND ABSORPTION OF CO2

Carbon Dioxide

Natural Human Made

Total Absorption

Annual Million

Metric Tons 770,000 23,100 793,100 781,400

% of Total 97.1% 2.9% 100% 98.5% Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf document page 6, pdf page 26, Table 3. See www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf for further references

Using first principles, if we doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you would see a slight cooling effect. The ones saying forced radiation is real must have never completed any mass and energy balances around any process. If the atmosphere is denser, more radiation from the sun will be reflected to outer space during sunlight hours, at night, the earth will not cool off as fast, more insulation. The overall effect will always be cooling because there is much more radiation from the sun coming to the earth than there is radiation from the earth to the sky at night.

Source: Philip Foster www.tech-know.eu/uploads/WhatGreenH.pdf

Observational evidence clearly indicates that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures; if there was, the CO2 would rise and fall in sync with temperature - that doesn't happen! CO2 is rising steadily whilst temperature fluctuate as they have always done.

Source: D’Aleo, J. S., "Correlation Last Decade and This Century CO2 and Global Temperatures Not There" http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

If you reckon that ten years is not enough time to analyze a trend, maybe this graph below, developed by Russian scientists, is long enough. It was a lot warmer during various periods back in time than now.

http://www.iccfglobal.org/ppt/Illarionov-01-10-04.ppt slide 43 The IPCC's Radiative Forcing "calculations" violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics Use any physics you want but you cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics, those are the Laws of Nature. The first law of thermodynamics states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into the system. The second one states that entropy is always increasing, never decreasing (you can't heat a warmer body with a cooler body). Thermodynamics determine heat transfer.

The "Play Station" graph created by Kiehl and Trenberth below showing that the earth gets hit by only 161 W/m^2, then 97 (17+80) W/m^2 leave the earth so you have just 64 W/m^2 left over which then miraculously increases to 396 W/m^2, a multiplier of 6.2 times! It would appear that most physicists never take any courses in thermodynamics. Kiehl and Trenberth couldn't have!

Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., and Kiehl, J. (2009) Earth’s Global Energy Budget, in Bulletin of the Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol 90, pp 311-323. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

No Greenhouse Signature in Atmosphere

There are several possible causes of global warming, and each warms the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes. Each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere and will leave its "signature". The IPCC "Play Station computer model" greenhouse signature is very distinct - see Figure 1 below. If this signature were present, warming would be concentrated in a distinct "hot spot" about 8 to 12 km up over the tropics, with less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km.

Actual measurements have been taken and the observed signature is shown in Figure 2. As one can clearly see, the actual signature is nothing like the predicted IPCC "Greenhouse" signature.

The greenhouse signature is not seen - no "hot spot" exists!

Figure 1.

Theoretical Greenhouse Signature (UN climate models).

Figure 2.

Actual Observed Signature.

Source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html

Lastly, since there is no genuine science associating CO2 with global warming, or climate change for that matter, there have to be other reasons for the climate changing; it has all happened before.

With thanks to

Bob Ashworth BSCHE WVU 1960 Member American Geophysical Union

The End Justifies the Means By Vincent Gray If you believe passionately in any cause, there is an increasing tendency to argue that the cause is so important that laws can be disregarded, that fraud and fabrication of evidence are justified, and that human rights do not matter There are many examples. If you believe that that terrorism must be defeated, then torture, murder of civilians with drone aircraft, the fabrication of evidence about weapons of mass destruction and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects are all necessary. If you believe that whaling must be stopped, then it is justified to board foreign ships, and spray the sailors with an unpleasant substance If you believe that our Government should not be involved with Afghanistan then it is OK to destroy Government property. If you believe abortion is wrong, you can kill any doctor involved. If you think genetic engineering is wrong then you can attack and uproot scientific experiments If you insist on blockade of the legitimate government of Palestine then you can kill people who attempt to break it. If you believe in THE ENVIRONMENT, protecting it is SAVING THE PLANET so all means can be used. There is a

"Precautionary Principle" where any "threat" to the environment must lead to action even if there is no supporting evidence. Better still, evidence must be fabricated. The news bulletins of the world must be scrutinised to find any item which can be claimed to "threaten" the environment and any items that do not, must be suppressed. A panel of "environmentalists" are recruited to support their beliefs on every news outlook, after making sure that nobody will be permitted to disagree. The "resources" of the world must be shown to be "depleted" by manipulation of official statistics. All the creatures in the world must be shown to be in "danger" of extinction. Actual numbers of recent extinctions can only be supplied by promotion of subspecies and varieties and by mass designation of "endangered species". Every "chemical" is "toxic" and can be shown to be dangerous by manipulation of statistics. The fact that there are safe threshold levels of all chemicals and of radiation must be suppressed. Nuclear power must be opposed and disposal of "nuclear waste" prevented The major effort has gone into the distortion, spin and fabrication of evidence to support the environmentalist belief that combustion of fossil fuels is damaging the climate. NZ Climate Truth Newsletters have now campaigned to expose this gigantic fraud for 20 years. I have gone into detail on every aspect. Most previous issues are available on request and my many publications on the subject are available on the

Internet by putting "Vincent Gray Climate Fraud" into your search engine. Currently "Google" gives more than 17,700 hits.

Claim That Sea Level is Rising is a Total Fraud June 2007 Internationally acclaimed sea level expert Nils-Axel Mörner says there has never been any evidence for human induced sea level change. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR. www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf ---- Queensland Government measurements of sea level rise September 2010 Actual sea level rise measured by Maritime Safety Queensland = 0.0003m per year. Projecting over a century that would be 3 centimetres - just over an inch. MSQ is responsible for people's lives and so highly unlikely to fudge numbers to obtain research grants. The actual measured annual rate of sea level change (0.3 mm) is less than the error involved in measuring. It's well below actual peak rates of natural sea level rises and falls experienced in the last 18,000 years.

Such reporters of weather, climate and sea level on which people's lives depend show there are no human induced changes occurring globally in climate as screamed by alarmists seeking political or financial gain.

http://www.icsm.gov.au/SP9/links/msq_tidalreferenceframe.html

----

Tidal Reference Frame for Queensland John Broadbent Maritime Safety Queensland, Mineral House, George Street Brisbane 4001 Australia

Because the sea level rise is very low, averaging 0.0003 metres per annum for the Australian continent (Mitchell, 2002), the 15 to 19 years of readings available from Queensland tidal stations is not sufficient to calculate a reasonable estimate of sea level change. Accordingly an adjustment of 0.0003 metres per annum is made to the mean sea level within the tidal reference frame. The allowance is been calculated from the central date of the observation period at each station to the central date of the tidal datum epoch (31 December 2001).

In time, it is expected that there will a sufficiently long span of readings and that it will be possible to obtain a refined estimate of the sea level rise at individual stations. The sea level change observed at each place can be incorporated into future primary determinations in lieu of the Australia wide rise incorporated at present.

Graphs of sea level from around the entire south Pacific shows stable sea level with natural variation. South Pacific Sea Level: A reassessment By Vincent Gray August 2010 “The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there. The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS levelling equipment in 2000.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

Climate Alarmist Called to Account and a drive to reclaim your country By Malcolm Roberts, approved adaptation from an email Politicians and journalists who believe that humans caused global warming are invited to read accompanying specific data. Then take action to protect yourself because there's solid proof you're being fed nonsense and you're politically, professionally and personally exposed. A formal complaint was lodged by me last week about Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's comments on the Australian government's ABC-TV program 'Stateline' broadcast Friday, October 29, 2010. Complaints were lodged with (1) the University of Queensland Senate, (2) ABC-TV Audience and Consumer Affairs and (3) the Professor himself. Despite having read many wild, unscientific and unfounded claims by fomenters of climate alarm, I feel stunned, annoyed and saddened by the Professor’s wild claims contradicting real-world science. His statements on 'Stateline' fail to meet needs for integrity, accuracy and responsibility. Attached are copies of my complaints and supporting material including ABC-TV's 'Stateline' transcript with my responses. Included are specific data that expose the Professor’s sweeping, vague and emotive claims as false and/or contradicting real-world science. Unlike the Professor, whose Global Change Institute's web site implies dramatically rising sea levels, the actual Maritime Safety Queensland measurements show Australia's annual sea

level rise in the last 15 years is 0.3 millimetre. At this rate, in 100 years the total rise will be 3.0cm, around one inch. Much of Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's statements on 'Stateline' are typical of what I've seen as the unscientific and unfounded spread of climate alarm contrary to real-world science. The many falsities and/or irresponsible actions of alarmists misrepresenting Nature and humanity typically include: 1. relying on falsities and unsubstantiated, unscientific claims that contradict real-world science. Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's fanciful claims lead me to conclude he seems ignorant of basic aspects of his own field of marine science; 2. briefing parliamentarians by posing as experts yet lacking qualifications in climatology. Prof Hoegh-Guldberg is a biologist not a meteorologist or climatologist; 3. lacking real-world evidence. Eight months ago I first asked Prof Hoegh-Guldberg for scientifically measured real-world evidence of human global warming. He provided no such evidence. There is no scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 warmed Earth; 4. using emotive 'sound bites' falsely claiming catastrophic damage to Aussie environmental icons such as the Great Barrier Reef (that experts agree is thriving), Daintree rainforest mists, Kakadu, Bondi Beach, .........; 5. relying on and citing UN IPCC reports even though I previously provided Prof Hoegh-Guldberg solid figures—obtained from the UN IPCC itself—proving that UN IPCC reports are fraudulently fabricated on falsities and not scientifically peer-reviewed. The UN IPCC corrupted and

bypassed peer-review. Key UN IPCC claims are based on work of 'scientists' who prevent scrutiny of their raw data. That's not science, it's uninformed and biased advocacy; 6. demonstrating ignorance of the scientific process and misunderstanding of science itself. From what I've seen the professor fails to understand what is meant by a causal relationship. He has no real-world scientific evidence of causation; 7. smearing, and without grounds discrediting, people who disagree with alarmist views even when those people may simply be questioning the lack of sound reasoning and the use of many, naked contradictions by fomenters of climate alarm; 8. relying on the global warming 'industry' to attract funding; 9. failing or refusing to declare their own financial interests yet implying sceptics are driven by vested interests; 10. cornering politicians to accept falsities by plundering politicians' ignorance of science and reluctance to publicly question alarmists posing as 'experts'. It's clear that many politicians feel 'trapped' even though 'experts' lack scientific evidence and fail to declare financial interests; 11. bulldozing journalists by taking advantage of journalists' ignorance of science and their apparent reluctance to scrutinise people falsely posing as 'experts'. Journalists often fail to challenge experts' conflicts of financial interest; 12. claiming the high moral ground yet failing to understand core moral issues while making recommendations detrimental

to the environment and humanity. Please refer to my comments on the ABC-TV transcript; These are only some of the many tricks used by the UN IPCC and UNEP. Prof Hoegh-Guldberg is not alone in spreading falsities. Included in my submission to the UQ and the ABC are copies of e-mails exchanged with Prof Hoegh-Guldberg last March. The thread of my e-mail of March 07, 2010 includes discussion with Professor Karoly. He failed to provide any scientifically measured real-world evidence of human causation of global warming. Professor Karoly is the UN IPCC Lead Author of Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC's 2001 Report. That chapter is the sole chapter attributing human causation of global warming. He is a UN IPCC Reviewing Editor of the equivalent chapter (No.9) of the UN IPCC's latest Report (2007) attributing warming to human production of CO2. Thus he's a senior UN IPCC 'scientist' twice responsible for the chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of CO2. Yet he cannot provide specific scientifically measured real-world evidence of human global warming. McLean's presentation of the UN IPCC's own figures expose Professor Karoly as part of a close-knit cabal of computer modellers responsible for the 2007 Report's chapter 9. It seems many of the authors had vested financial interests associated

with computer modelling. Parliamentary records show that in 2006 Professor Karoly received $1.9 million in research funds from the government to research quote 'detection and attribution of climate change' unquote. Yet by then we were told the science had long ago been 'settled'. Please refer to McLean's works that can be accessed on www.conscious.com.au. The first four of McLean's works at this site cannot be sensibly refuted since they merely present UN IPCC data on the UN PCC's own reporting processes. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC. In addition, note in the e-mail thread that Prof Karoly apparently erred in stating the UN IPCC's purpose. It seems Professor Karoly is a meteorologist who now puts his faith in unvalidated computer models to predict future climate. Yet the UN IPCC itself admits low and very low levels of understanding for more than 80% of the factors supposedly driving its radiative back-warming supposition. Over a period of just 12 years, the unvalidated models' projections have already been wildly inaccurate yet we're expected to believe projections for 100 years. In my experience true scientists rely on data. From what I've seen, playing the man rather than the ball seems to be a tactic for those lacking scientific evidence. Professor Karoly and Professor Hoegh-Guldberg are copied on this e-mail. If either provides specific, scientifically measured

real-world evidence that global warming was due to human production of CO2 I will send that to this e-mail's recipients. There is no evidence of human global warming: This e-mail illustrates just a few of the many methods used to spin the false claim that humans caused global warming. That falsity is being perpetrated despite complete lack of any evidence of human causation and despite much evidence to the contrary showing that cooling, warming, cooling cycles are natural. In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media quote: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" unquote. The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports—1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there's no evidence anywhere. Why pay our money to politicians, academics, ABC journalists for them to fleece us? Do you find it ironic that academics, politicians and ABC journalists are funded by our taxes and are working - knowingly or in ignorance - to promote false grounds for taxing us more heavily?

Some politicians have integrity and courage. How likely is it though that any other politician will rise to question this waste of taxpayer funds on the ABC and academia? The USA has spent 80 billion dollars on global warming over the last 30 years. International estimates reach 100 billion dollars. Despite this massive funding, global warming 'research' has found no real-world scientific evidence showing humans caused global warming. Imagine the humanitarian and environmental benefits if we'd spent that money on real science addressing such real-world issues such as HIV-AIDS or cancer or water quality or malnutrition or any of the real issues listed by the World Health Organisation. Instead, UN power brokers enlisted academics, journalists, politicians and NGO's to drive a gravy-train purportedly chasing Nature's trace gas essential for all life on Earth while pushing carbon taxes. The ABC Board tried to foster responsibility in journalists. Last March, ABC Board Chairman, Mr. Maurice Newman challenged ABC staff to adopt a spirit of inquiry. He made it clear in his address to staff that failure of any media organisation to be independent, objective and diligent brings consequences that will damage the organisation they cherish. The logic is clear: when journalists are seen to be biased or lacking in diligence, their audience loses trust and abandons them.

Although some ABC journalists won't fulfil their responsibility to Australia, will they recognise their responsibility for their ABC's future? I doubt collusion is rife. Yet unfounded climate alarm graphically demonstrates how a lack of journalistic courage to challenge 'accepted' misperceptions combines with group-think to spread nonsense. We are reliably informed federal cabinet includes climate sceptics. Yet will any ALP-Greens politicians hold Prof Hoegh-Guldberg accountable? Will any Liberals hold the Professor accountable? It's too easy for politicians to blow our money rather than ask questions that risk incurring journalistic wrath in the electorate. Yet courageous politicians of integrity do exist. Senator Fielding personally did his due diligence independently at his own cost. Then when Senator Penny Wong and Australia's Chief Scientist failed to provide him with any proof of human causation, Senator Fielding made a calm, rational, objective decision against taxing people on carbon. He retains his integrity. Former NSW ALP state Treasurer Michael Costa is known for his strength of character in saying what he thinks. He too publicly stated climate alarm was unfounded. Although he's no longer in ALP government, he retains his integrity.

Liberal Dennis Jensen, a physicist, has been outspoken in opposing the climate scam. Cory Bernardi, Barnaby Joyce and other Coalition Senators speak out publicly despite being diluted by the Coalition's public policy nonsensically reinforcing the myth that humans caused global warming. Thus, some Coalition members retain their integrity. These politicians are in touch with Nature and know Parliament is being fed Climate Rubbish and A larmist Propaganda - CRAP - by ill-informed and weak journalists and 'scientists' peddling alarm to fuel the gravy train. Meanwhile my wife and I use savings and sell assets to fund our own research and writing. We pay capital gains tax when selling assets to fund our effort to protect our kids' future. Our taxes pay salaries of weak politicians too timid to hold 'experts' and journalists accountable. It's easier for them to meekly toe the party line and irresponsibly waste our money than to pluck up the courage to ask basic questions. Why are Aussies paying politicians salaries for abdicating government to spin doctors and journalists? That's one of many reasons why so many Aussies are disenchanted with gutless politicians cocooned in Canberra failing to do their due diligence. Instead of protecting us from UN fraud, they're making us targets. If not us and a few honest politicians, who will hold academics, politicians and the ABC accountable? For references, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841

The Dark Green Lie: it's Either - Or Reality: it's Neither - Both By Malcolm Roberts Greens relentlessly scream that humans are evil, uncaring, greedy, irresponsible and guilty. Yet they ironically tap our inherent human care for our planet by using emotive sound bites to foster guilt and fear. They falsely and fearfully proclaim our choice is: Either our way of life and civilisation Or our environment Please refer to my comments on the ABC-TV transcript. History, economics and science show human care coupled with modern science's technology produces massive environmental benefits. Our civilisation depends on the environment AND the environment depends on our civilisation. Both are mutually supportive. If one fails, both fail. It's not Either - Or , it's Neither - Both. Both! For the environment's sake we need to continue enjoying and improving our lifestyle. We need to help those currently trapped in totalitarianism or poverty to gain the humanitarian and ecological benefits of our lifestyle. Sustainability enables people to live a prosperous life. History and the world today show the greatest threats to the environment are ignorance and poverty. The greatest environmental disasters are in nations wracked by poverty or government control.

The reality is that when people have sufficient economic wealth AND awareness they take action to protect the environment. How many major real environmental threats in developed nations can you name that once identified have not been addressed or are not being addressed? There's no need to feel guilty about human civilisation's major advances. Be proud of them. Don't let science be corrupted; that simply breeds ignorance, the environment's enemy. Stop the lie that humans are evil for seeking a better life with greater security, ease, comfort, health, longer life spans, wealth and choices - freedom. Don't wait for politicians to catch up with reality. Don't wait for academic 'experts' to replace their ivory tower computer models with measurements of Nature and science in the real-world. It's your money they're blowing, your future being destroyed. It's Earth's natural environment threatened by the ignorance of media-proclaimed experts and media-fuelled egos. Please reclaim our country. Please stand up to protect choice and freedom. For references, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841

The Elephant in the Room By John Droz Jr I have no intention of (or interest in) condemning the good efforts of many climate scientists! It is my belief is that a lot of superior scientific work has been conducted in the climate area. My opinion, though, is that much more needs to be done - especially before we extract from what has been conducted so far to make public policies that will cost us fifty± Trillion dollars and have numerous other profound influences on our lives. Is their any other field of science where the public consequences are so huge? Not to my knowledge. Considering that fact, I believe that the standards of climate science should be commensurately EXCEPTIONALLY high. To be blunt: at this point they simply are not. The recent IAC critique of the IPCC seems to support that. As a scientist and longtime concerned environmental advocate, my writing are typically aimed at trying to give citizens a better understanding of complex scientific matters. I often use analogies, as good stories are able to convey messages that otherwise would be extremely difficult to communicate. Please consider the following analogy about how I see the current situation with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Let’s say that we live in a society of blind people.

Let’s say that we get some reports that our community is threatened by a fast approaching enormous but unknown beast. Since we are all blind, no one knows what to make of this account about the strange creature. Three scientists are sent to figure out what this thing is, so we can then decide what to do about it. (To give you more insight about this story, I’ll let you in on a secret: this animal is an elephant.) One scientist comes back and gives us a comprehensive scientific chemical analysis on the elephant's toenail. A second produces a scientific analysis of the elephant's ear. A third provides us a scientific analysis concerning the elephant's tusk. They then get together to compare notes. Their consensus is that we have a prehistoric amphibious carnivore. Based on this conclusion they decide that the beast could be extremely dangerous to our community of blind people. Their recommendation is to kill it, any way possible, and as soon as possible. So, is this consensus conclusion of scientists science-based? I think not! If not, does that mean that the three scientists did a poor job in their individual analyses? From the information given, we don’t know, but not necessarily. Then what was the problem?

Assuming that their individual evaluations were accurate (a big assumption), here are at least two concerns: 1. three scientists were not sufficient to accurately assess what they were examining. Several other key parts of the elephant (by accident or design) were not adequately evaluated so that (missing) information could not get properly factored into the scientists’ consensus conclusion. 2. the composite conclusion (that this was a prehistoric amphibious carnivore) was NOT subjected to the Scientific Method. The fact that the individual elements (toe, ear, tusk) were presumably based on good science, is not sufficient to prove that the composite conclusion is equally accurate! In this case, if the hypothesis (that this was a prehistoric amphibious carnivore) WAS properly subjected to the Scientific Method, it would have been shown to be false (e.g. as elephants are not carnivores). Following that revelation, the scientist would have deduced that more information was needed to get an accurate picture of what they were dealing with. Their likely decision would be to bring in more experts to do additional scientific evaluations of the animal (e.g. tail, mouth, genitals). [Notes: Would the original three scientists see the new scientists as a threat to their credibility or competence? NO! Would the original three scientists welcome the new scientists with open arms, and tell them everything they knew to get them off to a good start? YES! If any of the new scientists believed that the original hypothesis was incorrect, would they be labelled by the others as a "denier"? NO!]

After the new scientific assessments were generated (again greeted with enthusiasm - not as an undermining to what the original three had done), all involved scientists would get together and come up with a consensus of a NEW composite. Additionally they would reach out to other scientists in their community to critique their work, to add insights, etc. If the hypothesis was the same as before (the one that had failed the Scientific Method test) then they would need to arrange for still more scientists to do additional analyses - and again proceed as above. If the hypothesis was different from the original, then they would subject that new hypothesis to the Scientific Method, and see what happens (following the same procedure as above). [Note that I tried to create a scenario where the analysis was objective, independent, transparent and based on empirical evidence. Everyone was on the same page: let's get this accurately figured out. No one had an agenda to prove that this animal was one thing or another. No one had their analysis clouded by some financial incentive. No one said to another scientist "go away, we don't want your input." No one said "the data I used and how I massaged it is proprietary." Computer programs were not a substitute for real-world analyses. Etc. Etc.] If additional scientists still did not come up with a hypothesis that was provable, then the assessments of the individual parts should be re-examined. Maybe an honest mistake was made? Maybe some assumptions were wrong?

Ultimately, a hypothesis will be proven to be correct by the Scientific Method - not by a vote or consensus of the scientists! At THAT point (and not before), policy makers would be advised as to what the scientists felt were the options, and the consequences of each. In my view, very little of this is happening with AGW, and particularly with the UN IPCC’s handling of this matter. The politics have gotten involved WAY too early; there is not a genuine scientific openness here; there often is not true objectivity as financial motivations have muddied the results; there often is not transparency; computer models (that often have undisclosed assumptions) have had an excessive influence here; etc. The result of all of this is that (at our extreme peril) we have strayed from what real science is all about. The solution is to get the political and financial biases out! Make the WHOLE analysis open, comprehensive, objective, independent, transparent and based on empirical data. Then subject the composite hypothesis to the Scientific Method.

The Power of Energy By John Droz Jr For many years now we have heard reports about how the quantity and quality of science being taught to students in the US has been on the decline. To most people this news is on a par with reports of tornadoes: “It’s too bad” and/or “There’s nothing I can do about it” and/or “Life will go on” and/or “It doesn’t really affect me personally.” Next news story. Unfortunately, the science decline has converged with another major scourge of our time: grade inflation. The net affect of the product of these two problems is that the relative scientific knowledge of our society is in serious decline. If you have any question about the validity of this, simply ask any of your friends to explain what the “scientific method” is. (Hint: failure to follow these established norms is a hallmark of pseudoscience.) The lack of such core understandings is a profound failing of our education system, and has lead to our current populous being, by and large, technically challenged. And the “it doesn’t affect me personally” assumption is totally false, as our country is now being driven by science-deprived journalists and politicians. Major decisions about your economic well-being, and your quality of life, are being made by well-intentioned (we’ll optimistically assume that), but ill-informed people.

Science is not a static field. While scientific methodology has remained constant, at any time in the last few thousand years there has been a prevalent paradigm (shared set of assumptions) which was used in determining what was scientifically legitimate, and what was not. A layperson’s view would be that a paradigm explains the world to us, and helps us to predict its behavior. One of the interesting and challenging aspects of our times is that we are now going through a phenomenally profound change in our scientific paradigm. Technology advances are one of several forces propelling this revolution. More computing power exists today in one Apple iMac than did in the entire world around 1960! This undeniably gives us new capability (e.g. for predicting weather). But what gets lost in the excitement of possibilities are other equally compelling facts, like the extraordinary impact that the personal biases that one computer programmer can have on our whole society. Other negative consequences are that children have become more technically proficient, but are significantly less creative. In addition, so much of their free time is technologically oriented that their appreciation of nature often suffers. Further, students so used to “answers” being instantly available, are gradually losing their ability to do critical thinking. And writing? IMO, FWIW, this situation has become FUBAR. And this is not W00T. SCNR. But maybe I went too fast there. Imbedded in the prior paragraph is the most fundamental problem of our time: the lack of critical thinking. What exactly is that?

“Whereas society commonly promotes values laden with superficial, immediate ‘benefits’, critical thinking cultivates substance and true intellectual discipline. It entails rigorous self-reflection and open-mindedness — the keys to significant changes. Critical thinking requires the cultivation of core intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility. Nothing of real value comes easily.” A rich intellectual environment — alive with curious and determined citizens — is possible only with critical thinking at the foundation of the evaluation process. Paraphrasing a quote from an Ann Rice book: ”Very few really seek knowledge in this world. On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to console themselves. To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind - which may annihilate the questioner.” This, in my opinion, is the core explanation for the dogged support of such non-solutions to our energy crisis (like wind power) by otherwise well-intentioned environmentalists. The energy issue has become the poster child of what is a scientific wasteland. Everywhere one looks there is information being paraded by the media and political entities as fact, whereas it is really nonsense, or from our perspective here, non-science. It’s challenging to know where to begin an analysis of this issue, but let’s just start with the fact that most people confuse “Energy” with “Power.” Every student should have been taught that “Energy” is “the ability to do work”, whereas “Power” is “the rate at which energy is consumed.” In everyday experience, home electrical

“Power” is measured in terms of kWs (kiloWatts = 1000 Watts = ten 100 Watt light bulbs). Lost already? Join the crowd. An analogy might be that Energy is your 60 gallon tank of hot water. Power is the water flow (e.g. from your shower, let’s say 1 GPM). That energy will supply 1 hour of that power. In a related way “energy generation” is often used interchangeably with “power generation.” However, there is actually no such thing as “energy generation,” because energy can not be created (due to the first law of thermodynamics - a science thingamajig). Electrical utility companies are more accurately businesses that convert one type of energy into another (e.g. heat energy into electrical energy). No energy is generated or created. Let’s briefly look at some of the other messages that are being fed to the unscientific public by the unscientific media. For instance: are we running out of sources of energy? No. Since energy is never “lost” that is impossible. Are we running out of sources of energy to convert? No, the energy resources in the US are essentially infinite. Will changing to another source for electricity (like wind power) meaningfully help the US reduce its dependence on foreign oil? No. The fact is that only about 1% of the electricity generated in the US comes from oil. Putting this in perspective, the United States EXPORTS significantly more oil than the amount it uses for electricity generation.

Is Global Warming a scientifically resolved matter? No. There is some very convincing evidence (and scientists) that indicate that there is such a thing as Global Warming. But there are some very qualified scientists (with good evidence) that suggest just the opposite. More importantly, statements often appearing in the media like “the majority of scientists” believe in Global Warming are meaningless. First of all, no legitimate survey has ever been done, and secondly, science is not about the number of people who advocate a position. A good example of the latter is that up until a very few years ago essentially 100% of physicians and professional health organizations (world wide) believed that it was scientific fact that ulcers were primarily caused by stress and excess acidity. Two contrarian Australian scientists proved them ALL to be wrong. [An interesting sidelight to this story is that thirteen years after this scientific proof was formally released, a CDC study showed that 75% of ulcer patients were still getting the wrong treatment. Change is resisted.] There are three basic positions to take about Global Warming: 1) you believe that it is true, 2) you believe that it is false, or 3) you believe that the jury is still out. What is indisputable is that the most unscientific thing you can say is: “The debate is over.”

Aren’t “renewable” sources of energy a good thing? Yes, because ALL sources of energy are “renewable” (replaceable by new growth) - just at different rates. Please reflect for a moment on this scientific fact: all sources of energy are renewable. Then what sense do such edicts as “Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)” make? Absolutely none. They set artificial time periods, autocratic limits, and arbitrarily favor some selected businesses that have gained political support. In a word they are unscientific. Wind power is in, hydroelectric is out. Solar power is in, nuclear power is out. Geothermal one of the best “renewables,” has been all but ignored. There is essentially NO scientific rationale for these distinctions. It’s all about politics, the money, and the lobbyists. But aren’t these political favorites “cleaner” and “greener”? No. Firstly because “cleaner” and “greener” are subjective, non-scientific terms, and the people who are making up this terminology are businesses that stand to profit from their implementation. When you hear “clean” and “green” think Madison Ave marketing. Intentional vagueness is part of a time-tested propaganda tactic designed to elicit cooperation. These clever folks are taking advantage of Joe Citizen’s scientific limitations and trying to manipulate him into thinking he is supporting a good thing. The reality is that he is lining someone’s pockets.

Secondly, even using the definitions made-up by the businesses that are profiting from this political clout (that “clean and green” means that less emissions, like CO2, are made) there are “non-renewables” that are just as clean and green. As an example, in some state RPS edicts, hydroelectric power (zero CO2 emissions) is not acceptable as a new “renewable.” Why? Because a political group (some environmentalists) doesn’t like some of hydroelectric’s environmental impacts - yet they say nothing about wind power’s. Again, we have a result based on politics and influence, not science. Nuclear is another example. Its total CO2 emissions are less than wind power, primarily because wind’s infrastructure has five to ten times the amount of concrete and steel, yet wind power is marketed as a “clean and green” replacement of nuclear. [And it has been calculated that for wind power to roughly produce the power of one 1000 MW nuclear facility, it would take some TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND acres of land... Another perspective is that if wind power was to provide the electricity needed by New York City, the entire state of Connecticut would have to be completely covered with turbines - and that assumes favorable wind conditions 24/7, which won’t ever happen.] But scare mongers (mostly non-scientists) have so far successfully overly concerned the public about the downsides of nuclear power. If we were better educated, we wouldn’t be so vulnerable to misinformation, and would see the situation in a more realistic perspective.

The scientific fact is that ALL sources of power have serious downsides. We should be spending our time and efforts on fixing (or improving) those power sources that have the greatest real capacity to provide dependable (e.g. Base Load, etc.) power, rather than wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on those that have the strongest lobby. In other words (again) it should be about the science of this issue, not who stands to profit from it. Still another absurdity of our times is what is known as “Carbon Trading”. Aggressively marketed as being a legitimate part of reducing emission pollutants, it is quite the opposite. The layman’s definition of Carbon Trading is that a polluting utility company =is allowed to continue to pollute if they buy someone else’s good actions or “credits.” But don’t they have to “pay” for this? Not really. As with most of these arrangements, the consumer will be the one who really has to pay, not the business. And of course we all are impacted (have to “pay”) by the environmental harm done by these continued emissions. But didn’t a version of this idea work for acid rain? Possibly, but... firstly, there were other factors involved with acid rain reduction so it is hard to assign exactly which did what. Secondly, this is a technically different issue in many ways — e.g. it is an easy task to measure acidity changes in selected lakes, but it is a considerably more complex matter to measure CO2 variations.

Thirdly, this is a much more substantial problem than harming lakes, so we need to be sure that it will work. Interestingly this whimsical plan is being supported by the same people who say that “the fate of the planet is at stake.” What sense does it make to allow extinction of Homo sapiens just because a few dollars are expended? Fourthly, the people setting up this arbitrary system have an unscientific agenda: they want to promote certain politically favored businesses (like wind power). They do this by assigning a fictitiously high “credit” to wind power, thereby encouraging investment in it. Then owners of coal utilities (who have real pollution) buy these monopoly money credits to get out of jail, which allows them to keep polluting -all with the government’s blessing Because wind power credits are not realistic in the first place (since they are usually based on false premises like wind power generates CO2-free electricity, or that it replaces coal power nearly 1:1), very little benefit is done to the environment. All you have to know is that taking advantage of such boondoggles was a key part of Enron’s recipe for success. Since one bad idea often begets another, Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are still another silly attempt to profit off of consumer’s scientific ignorance and their desire to do good. Is all this sound public policy? Another way to look at energy is that it is a force multiplier that helps us do more than we could do if we used less of it. This applies whether heating your home, pumping water, creating a manufactured item, operating your computer, or

whatever other function it performs. Using it wisely is important from efficiency, economic and environmental standpoints. Since its use always entails tradeoffs, we need to keep these in mind. However, making all energy more expensive, or mandating carte blanche reductions of energy use as an objective (without comprehensive and objective consideration of costs and benefits), does not make sense from a societal perspective, and will be seriously detrimental to all of us. All these ineffective and counterproductive ideas can be traced back to promotions by profiteers, coupled with misguided support by scientifically sparse souls. The bottom line is that our energy issues can be solved if proposed solutions are put through time-tested scientific methodology examinations. Such independent analyses would objectively determine whether the new ideas (like industrial wind power) are technically sound, financially viable on their own, and environmentally friendly. We depart from this proven path at our extreme peril. Some References Science in Education <<http://tinyurl.com/6q4rba>> Scientific Methodology <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>> Pseudo Science <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PseudoScience>>

The Beginnings of Science <<http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860975.html>> Key Characteristics of Scientific Paradigm (doc) <<http://tinyurl.com/4e2spb>> Changing Scientific Paradigm <<http://www.fmbr.org/papers/expand-paradigm.php>> Five Major Technology Changes <<http://www.intuitor.com/exciting.html>> Decline of Creativity <<http://tinyurl.com/6d9g7y>> Text Messaging Acronyms <<http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronyms.php>> Critical Thinking (PDF) <<http://tinyurl.com/3w7e3p>> Critical Thinking Community <<http://www.criticalthinking.org/ABOUT/index.cfm>> Ann Rice <<http://www.annerice.com/Bookshelf-VampireLestat.html>> Energy <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%28physics%29>> Power <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)>> First Law of Thermodynamics <<http://tinyurl.com/clrad>> New Energy <<http://www.frontierscience.com/new-energy.html>>

US Electricity from Oil <<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html>> US Oil Exports <<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrexus1A.htm>> 31000+ Scientist Dispute Global Warming <<http://www.oism.org/pproject/>> The History of Ulcers <<http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm>> A Critique of the RPS Mandate Idea<<http://tinyurl.com/5zxvs2>> NYS RPS <<http://www.dps.state.ny.us/03e0188.htm>> An RPS Analogy (PDF) <<http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/Alica.pdf>> Nuclear in Perspective <<http://tinyurl.com/29fmn8>> Nuclear Heresies (PDF) <<http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf>> Energy Business Future (PDF) <<http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/appeaausubel12april.pdf>> Nuclear Waste: Not a Problem <<http://tinyurl.com/3hw399>>

Geothermal-MIT Report (PDF) <<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html>> Base Load Power <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant>> Energy and Environmental Myths & Facts” (PDF) <<http://tinyurl.com/65kanx>> The Cost and Futility of Trading Hot Air <<http://tinyurl.com/6ocvyw>> Renewable Energy Credits <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tags>> All you need to know about wind power is found in the 2007 National Academies of Sciences report. The first item under “Conclusions” says that (assuming the most optimistic conditions) the US CO2 savings by 2020 will amount to only 1.8%, a trivial quantity: <<http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11935&type=pdfxsum>>. For scientifically based information about wind power, see my webpage: <<http://www.WindPowerFacts.Info>>.

The EU Connection in Climate Research By John Rosenthal Reproduced with permission from policy review, original URL http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291 Millions of euros come with an agenda. The leaking of the East Anglia “Climategate” e-mails and data last November shattered the appearance of a scientific consensus on supposed “man-made global warming” and provided a disturbing insight into the corruption of the scientific process as it relates to the “man-made global warming” hypothesis. The spectacle of scientists stonewalling freedom of information requests, destroying records, hiding unwelcome results, colluding to keep dissenting viewpoints out of scholarly journals, and even suppressing their own acknowledged doubts — all of this made it perfectly clear that other interests were at stake than the pure pursuit of knowledge. The centrality of the quest for funding in the e-mail exchanges made it equally clear that for the scientists in question, money, unsurprisingly, was first and foremost among those interests. But just who or what had corrupted the science in order to produce the phantom “consensus”? Commentators in U.S. online discussion forums and blogs wasted no time in identifying two prime suspects: the reputed prophet of green energy, Al Gore, and the right’s least favorite leftist billionaire, George Soros. Such speculation said a lot about the top bogeymen in the conservative blogosphere, but it was prima facie implausible or even indeed absurd. After all, no single individual, no matter how wealthy, has the resources

that it takes to politicize weather and corrupt the entire global scientific enterprise. Indeed, in the grand scheme of things, one of the named suspects is not even particularly wealthy. Despite the prominent role he has played as a spokesperson for climate alarmism, it is far more likely that the former vice president is a passenger on the global warming bandwagon, not a driver. If no individual has the money it takes, states — especially if they pool their resources — most certainly do. The real culprit in the corruption of the scientific process and the promotion of climate alarmism is named again and again in the East Anglia e-mails and documents. But the culprit is named with many different names, mysterious combinations of letters and numbers and lyrical code words, names like “dgxii, dgxi fp5 fp6 fp7 life enrich.” What do they mean? In the final analysis, it is but one and the same multinational organization that lurks behind all these designations: the European Union. The eu funding stream All the designations refer either to departments of the European Commission or eu funding schemes. “dgxii” is the acronym by which the Commission’s Directorate General for Research was formerly designated, and “dgxi” was the acronym for the Directorate General for the Environment.

The Research dg is essentially a funding organization. It controls a massive multi-year budget for research support known as the “Framework Programme” - or “fp,” for short. The European Network for Research into Global Change - or “ enrich” - was an early climate change research initiative that was launched already under the fourth Framework Programme

(1994–96). The Environment dglikewise has at its disposal a “financing instrument” (albeit a more modest one). The financing program of the Environment dg is called “ life.” The Research Directorate’s Framework Programme 6 - or “fp6” - ran from 2002 through 2006 and comprised a budget of some € 17.5 billion. The current Framework Programme 7 began in 2007 and will run through 2013 It comprises a research support budget of some €50.5 billion. fp6 funded 26 projects on climate change. The total eu contribution to these projects was a whopping € 165,580,451. The University of East Anglia was a partner institution in no less than eight of these projects and it was the coordinating institution for one. Under fp7, the “climate research” manna has flowed even more freely. In just the first three years (2007–09) of the current Framework Programme, the European Commission has already funded 28 projects on climate change for a total eu contribution, according to provisional data, of some € 116,271,772. The University of East Anglia is a partner institution in four of these projects. Several of the fp7 projects bear suitably alarmist abbreviated titles like climsave, redd-alert, and even HighNoon. As the example of HighNoon illustrates, not all the beneficiaries of the European financing are European research institutions. HighNoon is funded under an fp7 funding scheme known as cp-sica (“Collaborative Project-Specific International Cooperation Action”) that is specifically dedicated to funding research with “international,” i.e. non-eu, partner institutions. As it so happens, the lead international partner in the HighNoon project is none other than The Energy and Resources Institute (teri) in New Delhi. teri is the research

center of Rajendra Pachauri, the embattled chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc). No single individual, no matter how wealthy, has the resources that it takes to politicize weather. In as much as the “principal aim” of HighNoon is “to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat” (as well as “possible changes of the Indian summer monsoon”), the short-form title can be presumed to be an allusion to what is now perhaps the most infamously alarmist claim associated with Pachauri and the ipcc: namely, the prediction that at the present rate of “warming” the Himalayan glaciers can be expected entirely to disappear by 2035. As recently as early January, Pachauri rudely dismissed an Indian government report that found the “sensational” prediction to be unsupported by the evidence. Pachauri called the government report “voodoo science.” Barely two weeks later, the ipcc was forced officially to retract the claim, after the supposed expert on whose authority it had been based refused to stand behind it. The expert in question, Syed Iqbal Hasnain, is a teri “distinguished fellow” and, per a recent teri press release, the head of teri’s “glaciology team.” He is also the coauthor of a presentation on the “Status of Indian Glaciers under Climatechange Scenarios” available on the HighNoon website.1 It now appears that the 2035 date was the product of a misreading of the findings of the geologist V.M. Kotlyakov, who in a 1996 paper estimated that at then-present rates of warming the world’s extra-polar glacier cover would diminish by 80 percent by . . . 2350.

The projected eu contribution to HighNoon is €3,311,756. It is telling that a recent and related Carnegie Corporation grant to teri and an Icelandic partner institution is worth barely one-tenth of this total. This is to say that for scare-mongering “climate researchers” like Pachauri and Hasnain, private American foundation money is just, so to speak, icing on the cake. eu money is the cake. Pachauri’s teri is a partner institution in no less than six research projects that have thus far been funded under the eu’s Seventh Framework Programme. Three of the six are on “climate change.” Numerous U.S. institutions, both public institutions and private educational institutions, are likewise participants in eu-funded “climate research” projects. Among the files to be found in last November’s online document dump is a spreadsheet of grant monies received by Professor Phil Jones, the former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (cru). Jones “stood aside” from his post shortly after the compromising documents were made public. Above all on account of its imposing £13,718,547 total - or over $21 million at current exchange rates - the spreadsheet attracted attention in both new and even some old media. The data in it clearly reflect the importance of eu funding for the “climate research” agenda of Jones and the cru. But they also in fact underestimate the importance of eu funding. By far the largest grants included in the spreadsheet are operating grants to two research centers: the Institute for Connective Environmental Research and the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. As a British public educational institution, the University of East Anglia naturally relies on British public sources to cover the operating costs of its research centers.

But they underestimate the importance of EU funding. By far the largest grants in the spreadsheet are operating grants to two centers. If one removes these two operating grants and considers only the project-related funding, Jones’s total haul falls to £4,379,264 for the roughly decade-and-a-half (1990–2006) covered by the spreadsheet. Of this amount, some £1,882,706 - or 43 percent - came from the European Union. Moreover, the importance of the European funding clearly increases with time, representing some 48percent of the project-related grant monies after 2000< and fully 52 percent after 2002. The latter date is of particular significance for European “climate activism,” since it was in 2002 that the European Union and all its then-member states simultaneously submitted their ratifications of the Kyoto Protocol, the eu’s showcase international initiative for “combating” climate change. The year 2002 also marked the start of the sixth Framework Programme. It should be noted that some of Jones’s domestic British sources of research funding are themselves in turn beneficiaries of eu money. This is the case for both the uk Met Office - which is a partner in several eu-funded climate research projects - and the Natural Environment Research Council (nerc). The nerc, moreover, makes no bones about its avid interest in helping uk scientists to “leverage” eu money.2 As it happens, such a “leverage effect” — i.e., the stimulation of additional public and private investment as a consequence of eu funding — is one of the express aims of the eu legislation adopting the current Framework Programme.3

That eu money would come to swamp domestic British sources of funding even in the work of Professor Phil Jones is particularly impressive given just how relatively limited the horizons of the professor appear to have been. The real “internationalist” in the East Anglia group was clearly Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Center. Thus, on June 18, 2004 Hulme and two of his associates sent an e-mail to Jones and several other recipients announcing: The Tyndall Centre is intending to lead a bid for a large eu research project (ca. 12-15 million Euros in the initial bid) on climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in Europe. The call was announced this week with outline bids (ca. 20 pages) due by October (3rd call of the sixth framework programme, fp6). The Tyndall trio went on to invite the recipients to participate in the bid. Jones then proceeded to forward the e-mail to two of his Climate Research Unit colleagues along with the following note: Dave and Clare, I am presuming we (cru) don’t want to get involved with this. Cheers Phil “Err! yes i think this would be good to get involved,” Dave Viner replied. The successful bid would become adam - “Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy” - a project funded by the European Union to the tune of nearly €13 million. According to an “indicative budget” included in the East Anglia document file, as the lead participating institution the University of East Anglia alone was slated to receive a cool €1.84 million.4 Another document contained in the file indicates that Jones was part of a group applying for fp7 funding at the very time that the “Climategate” scandal broke. The document is dated November 9, 2009.

The abbreviated title of the proposed project offers some curious insight into just how Jones and his colleagues viewed the eu. The full title is “European Reanalysis and Observations for Monitoring,” out of which the authors managed creatively to extract the abbreviation euro4m. But the short-form title would seem more obviously to refer to something else: namely, the €4 million in support that the researchers were requesting! EU funding and the politicization of science It is no accident that eu funding leads to politicized science. “Promoting research that supports eu policies” is, after all, one of the stated “main strategic objectives” of the Research dg’s framework programmes.5 Indeed, the joint European Council/European Parliament decision adopting Framework Programme 7 promises “a new approach . . . which should allow the political objectives of Community research policy to be reached more easily.”6 The decision identifies ten thematic areas for research support and “community action.” For each of them, a “rationale” is provided and key “activities” are identified. The rationale for including “energy” among the ten areas is explained by, among other things, “the need to curb dramatically emissions of greenhouse gases in order to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.” In keeping with this rationale, “co2 capture and storage technologies for zero emission power generation” is identified as a key “activity.” Not surprisingly, “Environment (including climate change)” is another of the ten thematic areas. The “rationale” provided for its inclusion notes that “earth’s natural resources and the man-

made environment are under intense pressure from . . . climate variability and warming at local, regional and global scales.” In other words, the eu’s funding for climate research is based on the proverbial assumption that the science is “settled,” the debate “over.” Skeptics, so to say, need not apply. That the earth is warming, that the causes are anthropogenic, and that the consequences will be devastating - all these propositions, despite their largely empirical character, are treated as axiomatic by the eu’s program and hence placed outside the realm of legitimate inquiry. The program is thus at variance with the very nature of the normal scientific process. When Barack Obama went to Copenhagen in December and declared that “the reality of climate change is not in doubt” and that all that remained was to agree on actions “to meet the challenge,” he was merely repeating European dogma. The eu decision adopting the seventh “framework programme” serves, in effect, to promulgate this dogma: to establish it by law for the entire “European research area,” i.e. for all the eu member states and their some 500 million inhabitants. While decreeing empirical truths may have been a matter of course for Church authorities in the Middle Ages, it is surely extraordinary to find the political authorities of supposedly democratic nations doing the same in the 21st century. If we consider, moreover, the concrete policy objectives that eu-funded “climate research” is designed to support, it is hardly surprising that eu funding would favor dogma over science. The centerpiece of eu“climate change mitigation” efforts is, after all, the Kyoto protocol. Indeed, the Kyoto protocol has arguably been the single most high-profile eu policy initiative bar none. With the protocol set to expire at the end of 2012, the focus of current eu efforts is to have a new

Kyoto-like international agreement in place by that date and to succeed in involving the United States this time as party to it. But unless all three of the highly contestable propositions enumerated above are true, the emissions-trading scheme at the heart of the Kyoto arrangements amounts to nothing more than an enormous and wasteful boondoggle. All the various and sundry “mitigation” strategies — such as the development of “carbon capture” technologies, for instance — would be boondoggles as well. But just why would the eu want to promote such a system of boondoggles? In order to answer that question, one needs to go back in time: to 1990. 1990: Kyoto’s secret history According to a belief that is widespread among “climate skeptics”, the global warming scare and Kyoto’s ostensible solution are just means to an end, and the end in question is in fact entirely unrelated to climate or the environment. They are, in effect, just a backdoor route to global socialism. Now, it is certainly true that Kyoto hands over enormous power to international bureaucracies and subordinates markets to their whims. Indeed, the emissions trading scheme does more than just subject markets to political control. By dictating companies’ and countries’ need for carbon credits, it actually conjures a market into existence purely by government fiat. But the socialist Trojan horse explanation for Kyoto requires that we attribute an implausibly large degree of foresight and premeditation to European actors and/or their un “co-conspirators.”

eu bureaucrats and the national political elites in the two major continental European powers, Germany and France, are undoubtedly overwhelmingly inclined to favor a directive role for state institutions. But they did not need to have any grand design for global government in order to find Kyoto attractive. Simple opportunism and the aggressive pursuit of national interest were sufficient. For the terms of the Kyoto accord are in fact enormously advantageous for the eu. Most fundamentally, they are advantageous for the country representing the eu’s largest economy: Germany. They are more or less neutral for most other eu member states. And they are enormously disadvantageous for the United States. Kyoto was essentially conceived as a deal between the eu and the U.S., the world’s two largest economic areas in terms of gdp. Other parties to the agreement are largely window dressing. Under the banner of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” the treaty implicitly recognizes this fact. “Common but differentiated responsibilities” is a bizarre sort of newspeak for a novel type of international “agreement” under which many of the parties, in effect, only “agree” to other parties doing things. The Kyoto accord creates no concrete obligations whatsoever for some 150 of the 189 countries that are presently party to it. It is hardly surprising, then, that it was possible to get them to sign on. Many of the Annex I countries, however, benefit from targets that are so lenient that they too incur no real obligations. Indeed, by allowing developing countries to sell carbon credits to industrialized countries as part of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism (cdm), Kyoto creates a positive

financial incentive for the developing countries to join. Only countries that have ratified Kyoto may participate in the cdm. In light of its existence, it would have been astonishing for poorer countries to refuse to join the Kyoto system. They had literally nothing to lose and cold hard cash to gain. India’s National cdmAuthority estimates that the country will be able to earn nearly $6 billion on the carbon credit market by the year 2012.7 China and Brazil are likewise major beneficiaries of the cdm. So-called Annex I countries are a different matter. “Annex I” refers to Annex I of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Kyoto accord is a protocol to the convention. Unlike the developing countries, the Annex I countries do incur practical obligations under Kyoto in the form of emissions reduction or limitation targets - at least, in theory. The targets concern a bundle of “greenhouse gases” of which co2is the key component. Many of the Annex I countries, however, benefit from targets that are so lenient that they too incur no real obligations. Russia, for instance, is only required to hold its emissions at or below 1990 levels. Given the collapse of Soviet-era industries, this meant that Russia would be sure to have plenty of “hot air” to spare and could only be a financial beneficiary of the Kyoto arrangements. Australia is one of three Annex I countries assigned a positive emissions target under the treaty, thus being officially allowed to increase its emissions in relation to the 1990 base year. But Australia was not only given the benefit of a positive target. By virtue of what is commonly referred to in the literature as the Australia clause, it was also allowed to include emissions

from land clearing in the calculation of its emissions total for the base year. The effect of this was massively to inflate the base year emissions total, thus rendering the real allowance even greater than the official 8 percent. On the other hand, all but two of the present day eu member states are officially required to reduce their emissions under the treaty. Twenty-three of them incur the maximum requirement of an 8 percent emissions reduction. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that for the most part this apparently stringent requirement translates in practice into minimal requirements or indeed none at all. In 1990, of course, something rather epoch-making occurred in Europe: German reunification. The fundamental source of the legerdemain is the selection of the year 1990 as the reference date for measuring emissions reductions. In 1990, of course, something rather epoch-making occurred in Europe: German reunification. As a result of reunification, East Germany’s highly inefficient, highly carbon-intensive industries were quickly wound down. This would be reflected in a sudden and substantial drop in the reunified country’s overall co2 emissions figures. Now, it might be thought that only Germany itself could benefit from this fact under Kyoto. Why should the other eu countries have gone along with the trick? But under Kyoto other countries are in fact also able to benefit from Germany’s statistical “good fortune.” The protocol permits groups of countries to share their emissions reduction burden. Among Kyoto cognoscenti, this arrangement is colloquially known as a bubble. Nominally, each of the fifteen states that comprised the eu at the time of Kyoto’s adoption is

supposed to reduce its emissions by 8 percent in relation to 1990 levels. But thanks to their formation of a bubble, in reality they are only committed to collectively reducing their emissions by this amount. The actual individual commitments are laid out in Annex 2 of the April 2002 European Council decision approving the ratification of Kyoto. Germany graciously agreed to take on the seemingly disproportionate “burden” of a 21 percent reduction in emissions. As the top line in Figure I below illustrates, the country has already achieved such a 21 percent reduction in co2 emissions. The graph is adapted from the textbook Renewable Energy and Climate Change (Wiley & Sons, 2010) by Professor Volker Quaschning of Berlin’s Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft. As the other two curves in the graph make clear, however, Germany’s prima facie impressive achievement is largely just a statistical by-product of the precipitous fall in eastern German emissions in the early 1990<. The evolution of co2 emissions in eastern Germany is represented by the bottom curve. The middle curve represents the evolution of co2 emissions in western Germany. As can be seen, on Professor Quaschning’s calculations, from 1990 until today, they have remained almost unchanged.

And what of Germany’s principal partner in European integration? Under the eu bubble arrangement, France has no obligation to reduce its “greenhouse gas” emissions. It is only supposed to hold them steady at 1990 levels. All told, seven of the fifteen eu member states forming part of the eu “bubble” have no emissions reduction requirement. Five members of this group are indeed permitted to increase their emissions, some of them by vast amounts. The 1990 Kyoto base year was also, of course, beneficial for the ten “post-Communist” Eastern European countries that were candidates for eu-membership at the time of Kyoto’s adoption in 1997 and that would subsequently join the eu. In case it was not beneficial enough, however, the ten countries were permitted to opt for a year other than 1990 as their base year or even to use the average over a period of years.

Unsurprisingly, several of them opted to employ a base year or period upstream of 1990 when their still communist-era industries were pumping out the maximum amount of co2. Equally unsurprisingly, almost all of these countries will be able to meet their Kyoto targets without any difficulty and without having to have taken any special measures to do so. And what of the United States? Under the terms of the Kyoto protocol, the U.S. is supposed to reduce its emissions by 7 percent. On the face of it, this is a slightly less stringent target than that accepted by the eu15. But what does this 7 percent mean in practice? Well, it means 7 percent. The U.S. was granted none of the hidden indulgences that have allowed other industrialized nations to continue emitting “greenhouse gases” at unchanged levels or even to increase their emissions. It is hardly surprising, then, that according to calculations undertaken by Yale economist William Nordhaus, the United States alone was slated to bear some two-thirds of the total costs of the protocol as originally conceived and four times the costs borne by the eu15.8 From both Nordhaus’s analysis and the details of the treaty itself, it would appear that the other major loser under the terms of the Kyoto accord is Japan, which is saddled with a hard and fast 6 percent emissions reduction target. The march of the pgos Here is an update on the Inter-reg proposal,” Tyndall Center associate Iain Brown writes to Mike Hulme and two other colleagues in an e-mail dated January 29, 2004, “ . . . Aiming for a 3 year project of 3–4 million Euros.” interreg is yet another eu funding scheme, this one attached to the Directorate

General for Regional Policy. The proposal in question would become the interreg-funded project branch: Biodiversity Requires Adaptation in Northwest Europe under a Changing Climate. But in case the interreg application failed, Brown suggested some possible backups: “Other alternatives are life and Framework VI.” As mentioned above, lifeis the financing instrument of the Directorate General for the Environment. The current life + program, covering the period from 2007 through 2013, makes available €2.143 billion in funding.9 Contrary to Iain Brown’s apparent expectation, ordinarily life would not in fact fund scientific research. But what it does fund is highly relevant to the story of climate alarmism. If the eu’s Research dg and its Framework Programmes have corrupted the scientific process as it pertains to climate, the Environment dg and its life program have distorted public debate and thereby undermined the very democratic process. They have done so, notably, by financing ngos. The leaking of the East Anglia e-mails and documents sparked a remarkable and, in many ways, unprecedented process of public scrutiny of the supposed climate science consensus via blogs and online discussion forums. One of the most troubling discoveries made by the scrutinizers was the vast number of allegedly scientific claims in the ipcc’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report that were referenced not to peer-reviewed scientific journals, but rather to advocacy groups or ngos. As judged by the number of citations, perhaps the most authoritative of the nonscientific “authorities” cited in the ipcc report is the self-styled conservation organization that goes by the initials wwf. The acronym originally stood for “World Wildlife Fund,” and the American branch of the organization

still uses this name. The organization as such, however, is now officially known as “wwf—World Wide Fund for Nature.” According to publicly available European Commission data, WWF was awarded nearly 9 million euros in EU support in 2008 alone. The infamous Himalayan glacier retreat prediction in Chapter 10 of the ipcc report, for instance, is supported by nothing more than a citation of a 2005 wwf paper (which cites in turn Syed Iqbal Hasnain). As Donna Laframboise of the No Frakking “Scientific Consensus” blog has pointed out, a search of the ipcc’s Fourth assessment report turns up dozens of citations of no less than sixteen wwf-sponsored papers or pamphlets.10 Now, it is commonly assumed, even by many ipcc critics, that wwf is a private advocacy organization funded by donations from the public. This is hardly surprising given that wwf does, of course, engage in high-profile fundraising efforts. Wwf commercials have indeed helped to popularize what is undoubtedly the most iconic image of the supposedly nefarious effects of a warming climate: the stranded polar bear floating aimlessly on what we are led to believe are ever diminishing chunks of ice . But wwf also receives substantial funding from the European Union. Indeed, the financial ties between the eu and wwf are so regular and systematic that it would be more accurate to describe the organization as a pgo — or “para-governmental organization” — rather than an ngo. According to publicly available European Commission data, wwf was awarded nearly €9 million in eu support in 2008

alone. In 2007, the figure was over €7.5 million. The money came from several different eu budget lines, including development aid, “communication,” and the environment dg’s life+ program. Most of the support took the form of ostensibly project-linked grants to wwf-International or its national affiliates. The largest single grant — for €3,499,999 — went to wwf-International in 2007. wwf is so intimately familiar with eu money that it has even edited a handbook on eu environmental funding on behalf of the European Commission. In February of this year, the organization advertised a job opening with the title “European Funding Coordinator.” “The European Funding Coordinator will promote funding interactions between the eu as a donor and the wwf Global programme,” the job description explains. Not all of the eu’s funding of wwf, moreover, is project-linked. Most significantly for present purposes, wwf’s European Policy Office in Brussels receives an annual “operating grant” from the Environment dg. According to publicly available European Commission data, in 2009 this contribution amounted to €661,878, representing 15.46 percent of the office’s total budget. wwf’s European Policy Office has been awarded an annual operating grant from the eu every year since 1997. In earlier years, the subsidy represented as much as 28 percent of the office’s budget. In addition, since 2002 the organization’s Danube-Carpathian Programme Office in Vienna has likewise received regular operating grants from the eu.11 The period of the eu’s financing of the wwf policy office happens largely to coincide with the period covered by the East Anglia e-mails. wwf and wwf officials make several appearances in the e-mails. The general tenor of the organization’s interaction with the scientists is unmistakable.

In October 1997, for instance, just two months before the Kyoto climate conference, Andrew Kerr of the wwf Climate Change Campaign can be found berating the Japanese government for proposing “scandalous” emissions reduction targets for industrialized nations: i.e., more realistic, less misleading, and more equitable targets than those that would ultimately be adopted. “It is vital that European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge Japan to at least support the eu standpoint,” Kerr writes. In July 1999, Dr. A. Barrie Pittock of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (csiro) can be found well-nigh pleading with Mike Hulme to alter climate change scenarios being prepared by Hulme on a wwf grant. “Our main concern . . . is your use of the 95% confidence limits of natural climatic variability as some sort of threshold for change,” Dr. Pittock writes. This is a reasonable thing to do if you are addressing the question of whether climatic change will be detectable at a “scientific level” of confidence, but that is certainly not the question I would expect wwf to want answered . . . I would be very concerned if the material comes out under wwf auspices in a way that can be interpreted as saying that “even a greenie group like wwf” thinks large areas of the world will have negligible climate change. After receiving assurances from Hulme about changes in the latter’s presentation, a relieved Pittock (“I am now much happier”) sheepishly explains the background to his intercession: I should perhaps explain my delicate position in all this . . . I have a son who is now a leading staff member of wwf in Australia and who is naturally well informed on climate change issues. Moreover, Michael Rae, who is their

local climate change staffer, is a member of the csiro sector advisory committee. One day after receiving Pittock’s plea, Hulme received still more indirect “input” from wwf, this time via Adam Markham. Markham tells him that “in particular, they [wwf] would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.” In an e-mail sent August 6, 2003, Stephan Singer of wwf’s European Policy Office can be found flogging that summer’s European heat wave as proof of “truly global warming” and offering money for a study on the “economic costs of these weather extremes.” How could allegedly man-made global warming come to eclipse unquestionably man-made terrorism? Several other so-called ngos that have played important roles in the promotion of the Kyoto protocol and the supposed fight against “global warming” are likewise beneficiaries of eu operating subsidies. During the Copenhagen conference in December, the youthful militants of the environmentalist group Friends of the Earth earned a particular reputation for rowdiness, leading to the group’s highly publicized banning from the Bella conference center. Friends of the Earth is commonly described as a “grassroots” organization. Magda Stoczkiewicz, the director of Friends of the Earth Europe, complained bitterly about the ban: “If Friends of the Earth is not allowed inside the un negotiations we cannot play our crucial role in bringing the voices of citizens to the talks, especially the voices of those who are disadvantaged and already suffering most because of climate change.”

But consultation of eu funding data reveals Stoczkiewicz’s pretence to representing “civil society” and the “climate-disadvantaged” global masses to be a sham. In every year from 2003 through 2009, Friends of the Earth Europe was awarded operating grants from the eu’s Environment dg representing anywhere from 40 percent to 53 percent of its annual budget. Friends of the Earth Europe has been receiving eu subsidies since 1997. The Climate Action Network Europe, an umbrella group of European ngos, has received operating grants from the eu’s Environment dg representing anywhere from 34 percent to 64 percent of its budget in every year from 2003 through 2009. In all but one year, the grant was over 50 percent. One of the great political puzzles of the last decade is how allegedly manmade global warming - a purely hypothetical threat, of which no one has to date suffered any known consequences - could come to eclipse unquestionably manmade terrorism as the greatest “global challenge” of our times. That this development could occur during a decade in which by all accounts global temperatures have on the average declined renders the mystery all the greater. During this same decade, at least tens of thousands, and more likely hundreds of thousands, have fallen victim to Islamist-inspired terror attacks in the United States, India, Iraq, Great Britain, Tunisia, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Israel, Somalia, Spain, and numerous other countries around the world. The eclipsing of the real and immediate threat of Islamist terror by the hypothetical long-term threat of “global warming” represents an obvious aberration. It simply cannot be the result of the spontaneous uprising of the global masses, as Friends of the Earth and other eu-funded pressure groups would like to make us believe. Instead, it would appear that

the very practice of eu-funding of ngos has helped to create a sort of pseudo civil society, amidst the din of whose protests and press releases and media campaigns the interests of actual civil society have become all but inaudible. References 1 Accessed January 22, 2010. 2 See Natural Environment Research Council, “An International Plan for nerc.” According to nerc’s 2008–09 annual report, nerc itself received £4.3 million in support from the eu in the 2008–09 fiscal year. 3 See Decision No. 1982/2006/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council. 4 The university’s final take was presumably even higher, since the proposed budget assumes an eu grant of “only” €12 million. 5 European Commission, FP7 in Brief (2007), 7. 6 See Decision No. 1982/2006/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council. 7 See http://www.cdmindia.nic.in/, (accessed February 26, 2010). For a revealing example of how the cdm works, see Christopher Booker, “£60m bill for the co2 of our political class,” Telegraph (February 20, 2010).

8 See William D. Nordhaus, “Global Warming Economics,” Science, 294 (November 9, 2001), Figure 3. By “total costs” here I mean just the sum of the costs of all the countries or regions bearing costs. Nordhaus’s chart includes a bar representing “world costs,” which is something different. 9 See Regulation No. 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 10 Richard North’s EUReferendum blog should be mentioned as another blog that played a major role in drawing attention to the ipcc’s dependence upon wwf. 11 Data on eu operating subsidies to environmental ngos is available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ngos/list_ngos97_07.htm, (accessed June 30, 2010).

No more Double Standards By Paul Driessen Government officials and grant recipients must also be held accountable for fraud False, misleading or fraudulent claims have long brought the wrath of juries, judges and government agencies down on perpetrators. So have substandard manufacturing practices. * GlaxoSmith Klein has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $750-million fine for manufacturing deficiencies at a former pharmaceuticals plant. Even though there was no indication of patient harm, said the US attorney, the fine was needed “to pressure companies to follow the rules.” * Johnson & Johnson was recently slapped with a $258-million jury verdict for allegedly misleading claims about the safety and superiority of an antipsychotic drug. J&J’s actions “defrauded the Louisiana Medicaid system,” prosecutors argued. (The company intends to appeal.) * The Feds have also prosecuted baseball players for lying to congressional investigators about using performance-enhancing steroids. Said a prosecutor: “Even when you’re just providing information to the Legislative Branch, you need to be truthful”. Who could oppose following the rules, making quality products and being honest? But shouldn’t these values apply where far more is at stake than a few companies, pills, baseball records or bad role models? Shouldn’t we demand that these rules apply to people and actions that have unprecedented

impact on lives, livelihoods, liberties and communities throughout the country? Can we afford to continue having double standards that let government officials violate basic standards of honesty and accountability that they apply “vigorously” to citizens and companies? Why should legislators, regulators and investigators be exempt from rules they devise and impose on everyone else? Shouldn’t we teach our kids that government officials mustn’t lie to us, either? Few examples are as immediate, costly and far-reaching as the new ozone, dust, mercury and carbon dioxide rules that EPA regulators are trying to impose, under the guise of protecting air quality, planetary climate and human health. Few corporate executives or citizens are as exempt from basic legal standards as the energy and climate czars, czarinas, bureaucrats, and government-funded scientists and activists who seek to inflict their anti-hydrocarbon agenda on us, regardless of the science – or the impacts on jobs, prosperity, families and civil rights progress. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new mercury, ozone and soot rules alone would eliminate up to 76,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2015, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation calculates. That’s 7% of total US electric generating capacity – enough to power 38,000,000 homes under normal conditions. It’s 1.2 times the all-time peak electricity demand record for the entire state of Texas. Credit Suisse estimates that compliance with these new standards will cost the power generation industry (i.e., electricity consumers) $150 billion by 2020, to retrofit coal plants or replace them with natural gas-fired units. NERA

Economic Consulting calculates that meeting EPA’s proposed new 60 ppb ozone standard alone would impose an annual cost of $1-trillion per year and cumulative losses of 7.3 million jobs; create hundreds of new air quality non-attainment areas; require millions more car inspections and repairs; and block numerous highway, residential and commercial construction projects. The costs are monstrous – the benefits negligible, illusory or fabricated. The ozone rules would send power plant emissions almost to natural background levels in many areas. That’s just for starters. EPA claims coal-fired power plants release “40% of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.” But only a quarter of this is deposited in the contiguous United States. The National Center for Atmospheric Research says total mercury emissions from U.S. power plants are roughly equivalent to what comes from trees burned in forest fires. (Natural mercury in soils is taken up by trees through their roots.) Some 30% of mercury that lands in the US comes from other countries. And according to data collected by the Science and Public Policy Institute, when emissions from volcanoes, oceanic geothermal vents and other natural sources are also factored in, US power plants may account for as little as 0.5% of total annual US mercury emissions and 0.002% of global emissions. Worse, these huge energy, employment and economic impacts do not include the far more massive costs and intrusions associated with EPA’s scheme to slash carbon dioxide emissions, supposedly to safeguard “human health and

welfare” from “dangerous” plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide and the manmade global warming that CO2 allegedly causes. The Brookings Institute, Congressional Budget Office, Charles River Associates, Heritage Foundation and other analysts have documented the economic impacts. Delaware Senate candidate Chris Coons may “earn” millions if cap-tax-and-trade passes or the EPA rules are implemented. The rest of America will pay big-time. America’s #1 priority is fixing the economy and jobs. EPA’s seems to be killing them. As to the “science” behind what the White House now calls “global climate disruption,” the ClimateGate emails underscored how deceptive, manipulated and even fraudulent the supposed evidence actually was. The IPCC’s headline-grabbing climate “disasters” turned out to be based on environmentalist press releases, casual email comments, anecdotal stories, student theses, studies that had absolutely nothing to do with climate change, and almost anything except honest peer-reviewed science. On October 6, highly respected physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society. He had believed the climate chaos claims – but kept studying the science, pro and con, for years. He still saw a small human element in climate-forcing mechanisms, but no longer believed the alarmist hysteria. Finally, he’d had it, and said so bluntly in his resignation letter to APS President Curtis Gallan:

“[T]he global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read

the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. I don’t believe any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

As for EPA, instead of conducting its own analysis of competing climate change claims, the agency simply adopted the bogus IPCC conclusions. Even in the face of the unfolding ClimateGate and IPCC scandals, Administrator Lisa Jackson proudly and pointedly refused to alter her position or plans. While the Glaxo whistleblower stands to get $96 million for turning in his company, EPA research analyst Alan Carlin got sent to bureaucratic Siberia for issuing an independent analysis that disagreed with his agency. Now we face another monumental federal power grab, this time of the hydrocarbon energy that powers 85% of the American economy. The looming seizure of our money, jobs and liberties is based on shoddily manufactured “evidence,” fraudulent data and science, good-old-boy peer reviews, and false or misleading reports and testimony that would earn any citizen or company exec major fines and jail time. When Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, their first order of business should be investigating the “manmade climate disaster” industry. They should subpoena federal employees and grant recipients, question them under oath regarding their funding and activities, and hold robust, public, expert debates on the science, economics, costs and supposed benefits of cap-tax-and-trade, carbon dioxide “endangerment,” ozone, and other punitive government policies that are strangling our nation’s energy and economic future.

They need to ensure that basic rules of honesty, transparency and accountability are finally applied as forcefully to regulators and taxpayer-funded scientists and activists, as to the rest of us.

End the ethanol subsidies By Paul Driessen Congressional inaction would save taxpayers $6 billion, and bring other benefits too What am I missing? There must be some aspect of our insane energy policies that I fail to appreciate. “We the People” just booted a boatload of spendthrifts out of Congress, after they helped engineer a $1.3 trillion deficit on America’s FY-2010 budget and balloon our cumulative national debt to $13.7 trillion. The “bipartisan White House deficit reduction panel” chimed in with a 50-page draft proposal, offering suggestions for $3.8 trillion in future budgetary savings. The proposal targets $100 billion in Defense Department weapons programs, healthcare benefits and overseas bases. It also proposes a $13-billion cutback in the federal workforce and lining out $400 million in unnecessary printing costs. And yet, amazingly, not even this independent commission was willing to eliminate the $6-billion sacred cow of annual ethanol subsidies. The current 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline automatically expires December 31, as does the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. So all senators and congressmen need to do is nothing, and beleaguered taxpayers will save six billion bucks. We can only hope. Unfortunately, renewable fuel lobbyists will try to use the lame duck session to perpetuate the special treatment. The National Corn Growers Association,

Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy, ADM and POET ethanol count as friends incoming House Speaker John Boehner, incoming House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, other influential Republicans and scores of prominent Democrats. Perhaps if DePuy or Sofamor Danek donates some spinal implants, enough wavering legislators will find the backbone to challenge the subsidizers and ensure a little adult supervision over the budget process. If this election was about anything, it was about ending business as usual, ensuring energy and economic common sense, and not bankrupting the United States. Ethanol and earmarks represent a key litmus test for Republicans and fiscal conservatives. Failure to hold the line will create a rocky road for credibility and progress next year. It should be an easy decision. It’s time for action – or more accurately, inaction. Federal laws already require that gasoline be 10% ethanol, and EPA has announced that it will now allow up to 15% ethanol blends for cars and trucks built since 2007. These mandates already require that ethanol use increase from 13 billion gallons today to 36 billion by 2022, ensuring profitable markets for corn growers and ethanol producers, without subsidies. Even large corn ethanol producers like Green Plains Energy now say the subsidies are no longer needed. The subsidies and tariffs only fatten profit margins, reduce competition, increase consumer prices, cause frayed relations with Brazil over barriers to its sugar-cane ethanol entering US

markets, and stifle technological innovation that could improve production efficiencies and lessen environmental impacts. As Examiner columnist Timothy Carney observes, “the tax credit won't boost ethanol consumption at all in the future, because the mandate will set demand. So the tax credit will simply subsidize the ethanol that blenders – i.e., oil companies – would have bought anyway.” The corn/ethanol lobby says ending the subsidies would cost up to 160,000 jobs. However, a recent study by leading agricultural economists at Iowa State University concludes that only 300 jobs would be lost. If so, preserving the subsidies works out to $20 million for each job saved. Meanwhile, says Louisiana State University professor Joseph Mason, the Interior Department’s heavy-handed offshore drilling moratorium could cost up to 155,000 Gulf Coast jobs. That’s on top of countless billions of lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax dollars the US Treasury will never see, because Interior, EPA, Congress and the White House have made billions of barrels of offshore, Alaskan and Lower 48 oil and gas off limits. America could produce 670 billion gallons of oil (including 480 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel) from a splinter of ANWR equal to 1/20 of Washington, DC. Doing so would generate enormous revenues, instead of requiring perpetual subsidies. By contrast, reaching the 36-billion-gallon biofuel mandate would require 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol from cropland and wildlife habitat the size of Georgia, and 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuel from switchgrass grown on additional acreage the size of South Carolina.

Opposition to extending the tax credit and tariffs also comes from a growing coalition of meat and food producers, environmental groups and consumer organizations. They emphasize that corn ethanol production increases corn prices, reduces farmland available for other crops, and drives up the price of beef, pork, poultry, eggs, corn syrup and all groceries made with those products. It means fewer malnourished people can be fed under current USAID and World Food Organization budgets. The coalition also points out that growing and processing corn into ethanol requires enormous amounts of water for every gallon of alcohol fuel produced. (Cornell University agriculture professor David Pimental estimates the inputs at 8,000 gallons of water per gallon of corn-based ethanol.) Much of the water comes from already stressed aquifers – and growing the crops results in significant pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer runoff into our rivers, lakes, bays and oceans. Producing ethanol from sugar cane carries much lower water demands and environmental impacts. Pro-subsidy factions say $6 billion is pocket change in a $3.6-trillion federal budget. It may indeed be a small step. But all the caterwauling suggests it is a giant step for Congress – and a hugely symbolic one that can no longer be avoided. Moreover, if reductions like this are to be rejected as too trivial to trifle with, how do Nanny State legislators justify their intrusive rules on toilets, washing machines, plastic bags and light bulbs? How do they suppose cash-strapped families balance their budgets? The ethanol mandates are enough interference in what should be a highly competitive marketplace of ideas and technologies for America’s energy future. Congress should not muddy the

waters even further, by extending the subsidies and protective tariffs. (While they’re at it, the lawmakers should also pull the plug on chicken-fat-to-biofuel subsidies. This tax credit is just another unaffordable, feel-good “green energy” boondoggle – that turns waste fat into wasted tax dollars. Reducing effluent streams, garnering positive PR, and selling their “alternative fuel” to oil companies and the Air Force, under utopian biofuel mandates, ought to be adequate incentive.) It should be an easy decision. It merely takes commitment to principles – something our legislators better start discovering, if they want to be around after the next election cycle.

Is there a Solar Component in the Global Historical Climatology Network? By Jonthan Drake ABSTRACT The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is essentially the backbone of all the major instrumental temperature records. All the published historic temperature histories based upon this dataset show similar characteristics despite being calculated in slightly different ways. Does this confirm that they are correct or are the outputs of their processing a reflection of the underlying data? This brief analysis looks at some of the available data and assesses it in a number of simple ways. It is noted that there is a warming bias in the data which cannot be explained and which is associated with the presence of incomplete annual records. Further, a method of correcting the data for a discovered geographic bias creates a historic record quite different to those presently accepted within the literature, but one which appears to be supported by a formerly recognized global temperature proxy; sunspots. INTRODUCTION: The importance of the GHCN temperature record cannot be understated as it is this that principally underpins the global instrumental temperature history. It draws upon data from countries all over the world but North America and Europe dominates, particularly in the earlier years. Due to this localisation and the need for greater coverage, grid interpolation methods have been used, along with other adjustments to create the accepted instrumental records

presented by CRU, GISS, etc. But do these methods adequately account for all possible biases within the raw data? For the purpose of this analysis GHCN v2 datasets will be examined in an attempt to answer that question. This study builds upon the idea presented in Energy & Environment [1]??? by speculating that the correlation of mean GHCN temperatures with the number of stations is related to geographical distribution changes over time. To start, let us take a look at the GHCN mean gridded temperature anomalies [2], and other grid processed products, Figures 1 to 3. All rely heavily upon the GHCN data but use a variety of different adjustments. As one would expect, they all produce similar trends over the period, so if there are any biases then they would appear to be affecting all the end products similarly and therefore must be relatively independent of any adjustments and methodology. As can be seen, any differences in these datasets are relatively trivial compared to the general characteristics. It should be noted that differing reference eras are used for the anomaly normalisation but that does not affect the trends. Thus if there is any kind of problem with the basic data then it is likely to be affecting them all similarly.

Figure 1: GHCN monthly temperature anomaly from gridded data.

Figure 2: NCDC & CRU temperature anomalies.

Figure 3: GISS temperature anomalies. ANALYSIS: Effect of Missing Data: The station data from GHCN v2 [2] was briefly examined by manually selecting random sections. On inspection it becomes evident that there are numerous records with missing values, denoted by -9999. The raw data was averaged into two data series. They were calculated from all the data records for each year. For the “All Data” series, records with missing data were included in the average with the denominator being appropriately scaled. In the “Full Years Only” series, any years with incomplete annual records were excluded from the mean calculation. Two obvious questions are raised at this point: What does the mean temperature data look like; is it similar to the end product? Do the records with drop-outs affect the average temperature? Both these questions are readily answered by calculating and plotting mean temperatures with and without the records with drop-outs, Figure 4. Clearly there is a significant difference between the two calculated series and neither is similar to the gridded temperatures. To make the divergence between the two mean series more obvious, the differences have been plotted in Figure 5 & Figure 6, along with the equivalent change in the number of records. These graphs only differ by the chronological length. The gridded data only goes back to 1880 but it is instructive to see what is happening prior to that in the raw GHCN. In the earlier period, up to about 1890, there is little trend in the difference between the two temperature series. After 1890 there is a fairly sharp drop to 1900 then a levelling until 1920.

However since about 1920 it has gradually increased in a relatively linear fashion until about 1985 when it seems to basically level off. With regard to the difference in the number of records, that seems to show similar trends to the temperature difference over the period 1900 to 1990. From 1990 the difference in the number of records seems to diverge from the difference in temperature, and similarly from 1880 to 1900. Figure 7 shows the same temperature difference but this time with the proportion of incomplete records. Generally the proportion of incomplete records is less than 0.2 but it jumps at about 1990 to circa 0.4 with a peak exceeding 0.6. Thus the proportion of incomplete annual records is significant. Making the assumption that the missing points would be randomly distributed and with the relatively large number of records involved, the missing data would be expected to have little effect. This is apparently not the case however investigating the reason for this warming bias is beyond the scope of this study. Figure 8 & Figure 9 compare the raw mean temperatures with and without incomplete annual records to gridded CHCN. The averages have about twice the range of the gridded version and apart from the generally upward trends they appear to have little resemblance.

Figure 4: GHCN averaged temperatures.

Figure 5: Difference between All Data and Full Years Only data.

Figure 6: Difference between All Data” and Full Years Only data, 1880 onwards.

Figure 7: Difference between All Data and Full Years Only mean temperatures and proportional change in the number of records.

Figure 8: Mean All Data and Gridded Temperatures compared.

Figure 9: Mean Full Years Only and Gridded Temperatures compared. Insolation variation with Location Probably the most important issue when assessing temperatures from different numbers of stations in shifting locations around the globe is how to account for solar insolation changes due to mean geographic location variation. This is perhaps best explained by assuming just three stations, one at the North Pole, one in say London and the last at the Equator. If any of them is removed from the record or shift significantly in latitude, or even altitude, it will affect the mean temperature measured. With greater numbers of weather stations this effect ought to become less significant but may not be reduced sufficiently as to not influence long term trends. Thus it is important to ensure that the geographic location is accounted for adequately.

To examine GHCN for this type of problem, the gridded dataset [3] is useful. As a first step, it is instructive to see the variation in the number of gird cells with data as a function of latitude and time. For each month, the number of cells in each of the latitude bands with a valid value was counted. The results are displayed as an image, Figure 10. Whilst this shows the large variation over time and the dominance of the Northern hemisphere, it says little about the influence of the changes since the number of cells each year, i.e. the coverage is also altering. Thus the counts need to be normalised by the total number across all the bands. A similar image plot has been created to illustrate the proportion of cells in each band as a function of time, Figure 11. It is also given as a 3D chart as an aid to interpretation, Figure 12. Coverage and number of records are compared to mean raw temperatures and each other in the appendix, Coverage & Records. Both of these charts clearly indicate that there is considerable variation in the geographic spread over the period of the instrumental record. Any variation will introduce changes in the temperature that are not related to climatic change. Thus it is necessary to take it into account and correct for them. The gridding methods used by CRU, GISS, etc are purported to overcome this problem but might there be some artefacts remaining in the final product? Here a simple technique will be used as an alternative approach to obtaining a global temperature series. It uses the two data sets examined above and explicitly corrects for changing insolation levels as a result of geographic variation with time. The first step in this process has already been done, and that is to calculate how the relative influence of each latitude band within the total coverage. This was weighted by the cosine of the mid-band value. Weighting by a cosine function is a

simple and convenient method of approximating to the mean solar insolation incident on each latitude band. Whilst a cosine function is not an accurate description of the true insolation levels, it is adequate for estimating the relative changes in this parameter with time because the variations are likely to be relatively small. For the purpose of this calculation it is assumed that average annual insolation has not varied over the period of the datasets. It is further assumed that all the data presented in the mean temperature series [2] was used in the construction of the gridded product [3]. A more mathematical description of this calculation is given in the Calculations section. Calculated relative insolation is shown in Figure 13 as an image. Relative insolation levels are colour coded and given for each month and latitude band across the entire period of the instrumental record. As can be seen, there are significant fluctuations and there is dominance of the northern hemisphere. The image plot is not easy to interpret in terms of overall shifts and so a global relative insolation time series was constructed by summing the values in all the latitude bands for each month, Figure 14. A linear fit has been applied to illustrate the general trend. There is an overall drift towards higher level of insolation which strongly suggests a warming trend is present within GHCN raw data.

Figure 10: Variation in the number of cells in each latitude band.

Figure 11: Proportion of cells in each latitude band as a function of time.

Figure 12: 3D Chart of proportion of cells in each latitude band as a function of time.

Figure 13: Relative insolation calculated from normalised cell counts in each latitude band weighted by a sine function.

Figure 14: Relative insolation as a global time series (monthly). Correcting for Insolation Variation Plotting the global relative insolation on the same graph as the raw mean temperatures it can be seen that there is some apparent similarity, Figure 15. Linear fits have been applied to both curves to highlight the general trends. To examine these for a correlation relationship they were combined on a scatter plot [Figure 16]. To this a linear fit was applied since changes in insolation are expected to produce proportional temperature variations. Second and third order polynomials have also been shown along with a smoothed curve using a Gaussian filter. Deviation from a linear relationship could be, amongst other things, the result of the already reported warming bias in the data and/or the

approximation of a cosine function to latitudinal variation in insolation. The linear fit yields the following relationship: Y = -46.395 + 78.573*X, R2 = 0.4503, where Y = Temperature (°C) and X = global insolation. This model can be used to remove the influence of insolation on temperature. Feeding the global insolation into the model and subtracting the result from the raw mean temperatures at each time increment, i.e. for each data point: Corrected temperature = Raw mean temperature – Y Corrected data is given in Figure 17. Note: An anomaly temperature is calculated by this process. The corrected version is significantly different to the raw mean temperature and adding up to about 2°C in early years and reducing in later years to about 1°C. Clearly it has little resemblance to the gridded products, Figures 1 to 3. This is demonstrated in Figure 18. The large disparity between the gridded version and this new history is problematic and thus the new version requires some kind of support. This is investigated in the discussion. Using the technique, the data with only full annual records was used and the two relevant graphs, the correlation/model calculation and result are shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20 respectively. These are the equivalents of Figure 16 & Figure 17. It should be recognised at this juncture that there could be a mismatch between the relative insolation calculation and the temperatures from only full annual records. This might impact the results of the somewhat, but if the removed records are randomly distributed that perturbation ought to be small. Moving to the temperature/insolation plot, several extra fits have been applied as examples in the model calculation. From this the linear model using only full annual records is: Y = -27.456 + 52.671*X, R2 = 0.5018, where Y = Temperature (°C) and X = global insolation.

The correlation is somewhat closer to linear than when all the data is used, as indicated by R2, and the apparent relationship with insolation is somewhat reduced along with the temperature span. Gaussian filters have been applied to more clearly illustrate the general trends of the insolation corrected histories. Again, the application of this insolation correction has yielded a temperature history significantly differing from the gridded products. It should also be noted that the overall span has been reduced by a factor of about 2 relative the same process applied to the complete dataset. That said, in both cases the almost monotonic trend of the gridded series is not present and corrected temperatures of earlier times are much more comparable to those of the late twentieth century.

Figure 15: Global relative Insolation and Mean Temperature, both annual time series.

Figure 16: Mean temperature versus relative insolation.

Figure 17: Insolation corrected GHCN temperatures using all data.

Figure 18: Corrected, raw mean and gridded GHCN temperatures.

Figure 19: Mean Temperatures versus Relative Insolation (Full Year data only)

Figure 20: Mean Temperatures from full annual records only and corrected for insolation variation. DISCUSSION Prior to the late 20th century the Sun had been regarded as the prime driver of climate. Most of the major civilisations of the past revered the Sun and there are many claims of it being used form prediction. Furthermore, correlations have been noted between sunspots and numerous phenomena. But these views were fairly recently over-turned and the consensus science, bolstered by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) asserted that climate change was due to the activities of Man, notably the burning of hydrocarbons, and more generally referred to as “fossil fuels”. It seems strange that climate has changed dramatically at many times in the past, long before hydrocarbons became the dominant energy

source. Indeed, climate change appears to have been partially responsible for the collapse of a number of ancient civilisations. So might there be something in the old theories which suggest that the Sun is variable on various timescales, possibly on decadal or shorter periods, and that it affects global temperatures and thus climate? In order to test this hypothesis the most obvious and longest known observational proxy of solar activity, sunspots, was used for comparison with the corrected history obtained through the calculation above. The two are plotted in Figure 21 & Figure 22. There appears to be some similarity but as it stands, the correlation seems relatively weak. However, it needs to be recognised that applying centred filters does not replicate real life physical mechanisms involved in energy transfer from the Sun to Earth nor its distribution around the planet. These phenomena will inevitably result in a time lag between any variation on the Sun, such as the observed sunspot peaks, and associated temperature characteristics of the Earth. Taking this into account, a time lag is applied to the sunspot history and compared to the two corrected temperature curves. For the purpose of this exercise the time shift is for a reasonable visual match. Adjustment of the vertical axes may allow better visual correlation. The results are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Figure 21: Insolation corrected temperature & sunspot numbers.

Figure 22: Insolation corrected mean GHCN temperatures (Full Year records only)

Figure 23: Insolation corrected mean GHCN temperatures with lagged sunpsot number (All Data)

Figure 24: Insolation corrected mean GHCN temperatures with lagged sunpsot number (Full Years only) Both charts have sunspot numbers lagged by 10 years and they both appear to display a fair degree of correlation between temperature and sunspots. Assuming this is not a spurious correlation can a lag of this magnitude be justified through known mechanisms? Scoping exercises which are not detailed within this document, although briefly touched upon in the appendix (Simple Electrical Model of Radiative Coupling) suggest that up to about 3 years lag could be accounted for by direct radiative transfer and thermal inertia. The process assumes that the energy output of the Sun varies proportionately with sunspot numbers. Whether the small changes in total solar irradiation over the course of solar cycles, as recorded in recent years, is an adequate explanation is not discussed here.

It should be noted that variations in the sun that cause temperature changes on earth are not necessarily limited changes in light output from the sun. Temperatures can potentially be modulated by many processes that are linked to the varying activity of the sun. Changes in electromagnetic output could be accompanied by other proportional mechanisms one or more of which could modulate received irradiation, such as ionising radiation modifying cloud cover. Could there be some evidence of such a mechanism in the neutron count-rates of the Moscow Neutron Monitor? See Figure 33 & Figure 34. The neutron counts are lagged relative to sunspot numbers and if they represent a mechanism able to modulate cloud cover, the resultant thermal lag would be greater than by direct radiative transfer alone. Alternatively, they might demonstrate that the atmosphere is changing as a result of sunspot activity. Another interesting aspect of the neutrons is that their lags seem to be associated with the Hale cycle in that alternate Schwabe cycles show greater lags. Also, the neutron variation is considerable compared to TSI at about 16%. Returning to the overall time lag; the rest of it can probably be accounted for by the redistribution of the heat from the Tropics by ocean currents around the rest of the world. This transport mechanism has a periodicity similar to the additional lag required, particularly the North Atlantic Oscillation and it is conceivable that this heat energy is an integral part of the circulatory driving force. Since there are multiple circulation patterns, the delays between absorption of heat energy and transport to the places where the temperatures are measured are bound to be variable. Thus the average time shifts within the temperature record will not be constant. As a consequence, no single time shift can be expected to align all the features observed between the temperature and sunspot records. Also, noise, general

smoothing and other perturbations may well obscure some of the character within the temperature record. Another compounding factor is the short term, rapid, temperature response on time scales of one year or less. The seasonal variations tend to dominate the land response and although not absent are much reduced over the oceans being typically about 0.6°C over the course of a year. CALCULATIONS The gridded GHCNv2 temperature dataset comprises 5°x5° cells, thus complete global coverage is 36 by 72 cells; i.e. The grid is 36 latitude bands 5° high by 72 longitude cells 5° wide. Raw Band Count [RBC] = number of cells with data in each latitude band. Total Count [TC] = number of valid data cells in the full grid. Normalised Count [NC] = RBC/TC Coverage (%) = 100%*TC/(36*72) Relative insolation [RI] was approximated by taking NC and weighting it by the cosine of mean latitude value, in degrees, of the corresponding band. Therefore bands adjacent to the Equator receive a weighting close to 1 whilst the bands at the poles receive approximately zero weighting. For the band 0° to 5° the weighting is cos(2.5°) = 0.999, for 45° to 50° it is cos(47.5°) = 0.676 and the band 85° to 90° is cos(87.5°) = 0.044. The global relative insolation times series was generated by summing the cosine weighted bands to create a single value. It assumes that mean annual theoretical insolation is constant with time. CONCLUSIONS

The GHCN temperature dataset underpins the global historic instrumental temperature record. The global record is produced from GHCN via gridding processes and it is generally accepted as the definitive temperature history. However, it appears to contain at least two significant warming biases. One bias is the result of incomplete annual records and remains unexplained. The other is a direct consequence of geographic shifts resulting from changes to the number of stations and their location. A method of correcting for the later has been presented but the result bears little resemblance to the accepted history. Comparisons of the relative insolation corrected GHCN mean temperatures by the described method and time-lagged sunspot numbers shows a surprising similarity. Explanations for the relative time shift between the two parameters are suggested as thermal inertia and heat energy redistribution around the globe by oceanic circulations. Food for Thought Genesis 41: Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream: Seven years of feast followed by seven years of famine. Could this be an indication that climate was predicted in ancient Egypt? If so how? They studied the cosmos very closely and the sun was revered. Might it be that sunspots were used for prediction? A significant time lag (maybe a decade) between sunspot variation and climate changes would be particularly beneficial for forecasting. Notes The relative insolation (RI) calculation is not supposed to be an accurate estimate of insolation but rather a tool for assessing the possibility of a spatial variation in average

geographic coverage with time. Any significant RI variation with time may produce a bias in the temperature record. A scatter plot of raw mean temperature versus RI would be expected to yield a linear relationship. Deviations from linear may be the result of the highly simplified and assumed relationship between insolation and latitude or it may indicate that other compounding influences are present, for example Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect or biases from inappropriate installation/maintenance of the instrumentation, etc. Is there any evidence of bias in altitude changes or other geographic influences? This is not addressed in this document. Time lags (phase changes) may become more evident in earlier times where global coverage was lower. This is because fewer components with differing periodicity are measured and they then become more prominent in the record. The applied correction does not address such timing perturbations. The possibility of duplicate records has not been checked but is probably not significant. Is the GHCN instrumental temperature history supported by a physical mechanism/other evidence? If not, then maybe it is less valuable than once believed? No attempt has been made to adjust for end effects on the smoothing filters. As a result, the sunspot numbers are essentially following the end of the solar cycle 23. On the temperature curves, the upward flick on the insolation corrected full annual record curve may be the result of noise or possibly the beginning of the El Nino that peaked in 2010. Either way, it is due to no more than 3 data points and therefore of limited significance. DATA FILES & REFERENCES

Datasets were downloaded on 26/6/2010, except where stated otherwise. The Influence of Station Numbers on Temperature Measurement; Jonathan J. Drake, Energy & Environment ??? GHCN v2 mean temperature metadata records listed by station identifier [Dataset]: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z GHCN v2 monthly gridded temperature anomalies [Dataset]: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/grid/grid_1880-2009_RVose.dat.gz CRU global temperature anomaly image: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif NCDC/CRU global temperature anomaly image: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg GISS global temperature anomaly image: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif GHCN v2 data source overview: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php Monthly sunspot numbers [Dataset] (Downloaded 20/8/2010): http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/monthssn.dat Moscow Neutron Monitor [Dataset] (Downloaded 26/6/2010): http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm

APPENDIX Coverage & Records Coverage was calculated by simply counting valid temperature data grid cells, dividing by 2592 and expressing it as percentage [Figure 25].

Figure 25: GHCN global coverage.

Figure 26: Coverage and raw mean temperature.

Figure 27: Coverage and number of records.

Figure 28: Number of records and mean temperature, 1880 onwards.

Figure 29: Number of records and mean temperature, full history.

Simple Electrical Model of Radiative Coupling This mechanism is not adequately modelled by most low-pass/smoothing filters built into the likes of spreadsheets. Thus the lag issue and filtering are best addressed via a different means which is why an electrical analogy is used here. A simple electrical analogy could be a current source representing the Sun that is modulated by sunspot numbers as in Figure 30. Thermal inertia of the Earth would be modelled as a capacitor fed by the current source with a resistor in parallel to discharge it. The resistor thus represents the radiative cooling mechanism of the planet. Thermal inertia of the Earth in conjunction with the solar radiation acts as a crude and lossy integrator. Supposing the radiation from the Sun has been absolutely constant for long enough to allow thermal equilibrium to be attained. Then the solar output is increased by a small amount. Equilibrium would be lost and the system would attempt to find the new one and so temperatures rise. If the solar output is cyclic then heat energy will be added to the system as long as the solar radiation is sufficiently strong to cause higher temperature equilibrium to be sort. When the solar energy is unable to maintain the temperature, it will drop as it attempts to find the new lower equilibrium. It is important to note that it is not just the amplitude of the sunspot peaks that is significant but also the effective duration. This kind of time-lag effect is well known in climate science and meteorology. For example it is seen in Seasonal Lag. It is known that the Earth heats and cools significantly each year due to orbital variation. This might provide a constraint upon the short-term thermal inertia of the planet.

Figure 30: Simple electrical model simulating radiative heat transfer Depending upon the relative time constant and current source scaling, the output voltage signal can be significantly diverse. Examples defined by relative time constants (TC) are given in Figure 31 as normalised curves referred to the first data point. These simulations use real sunspot data. Figure 32 gives as expanded view to illustrate the lag between sunspots and output amplitude.

Figure 31: Simulation results for differing time constants. As would be expected, the longer the time constant is the smoother and more lagged the result becomes. Even a relatively short time constant produces a delay between peaks of over one year.

Figure 32: Simulation results. Expanded view to show time lags with various time constants. Correlation of Neutrons and Sunspots

Figure 33: Moscow Neutron Monitor count-rates and Sunspot number.

Figure 34: Moscow Neutron Monitor count-rates and Sunspot number. Neutron scale inverted.

Tilting at W indmills By Benjamin B. Phillips In its quixotic quest for renewable energy, the government is picking more losers than winners. The Senate continues to consider a range of energy policy proposals, and may take one or more up during the “lame duck” session after the November elections. It is not yet clear which ones will emerge. However, some of the options include renewable electricity standards, requiring power companies to include renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal) as part of their electricity generation mix, and do so in escalating percentages by specific dates – regardless of whether affordable, reliable technologies actually exist by those dates. Alternatively, some other scaled-down energy bill could potentially be reconciled with the comprehensive cap-tax-and-trade scheme that the House passed last year. A central element in each of these proposals will be ways in which the Federal government will try to “incentivize” business to reach federally mandated goals for energy savings and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, taxation will be part of the mix, as will direct regulation. But another facet of any bill which passes the Senate is likely to be tax breaks and federal (taxpayer and consumer) subsidies for favored approaches to creating and saving energy. In a period of economic recession and potentially catastrophic budget deficits, the cost-effectiveness of these proposals will be not only an economic and fiscal issue, but also a moral question.

Proverbs teaches us that “in the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has” (21:20). Our government has not been very wise about spending our tax money for quite a while, as our $13 trillion national debt shows. Proverbs, and our recent history, prompts us to ask whether Senators can play the role of “the wise” when it comes to picking which technologies to subsidize, and which to ignore. Can Congress really legislate the most efficient and effective use of our money, when it comes to our choices about energy production and consumption? Does it have the expertise and wisdom – or the ability and willingness to do so outside the realm of politics and political favors? Take as a test case the governmental push for wind turbines as a source of energy, in comparison to the “recycling” approach begun in Indiana a few years ago. Wind power is at the cutting edge of environmental-chic. Images of wind farms, with their tall towers and rotating blades, simply scream “eco-friendly” (though no one wants them in their neighborhoods, and birds and bats don’t like them either). Politicians have rushed to spend taxpayer money on these projects – to the tune of $93 million in last year’s “Recovery Act” alone. Yet wind-based electricity is notoriously unreliable (working only 7-hours a day on average) and expensive to construct (requiring 10 times more steel and concrete than other sources to produce the same amount of electricity less dependably).

Wind is also expensive (and carbon-intensive) to back up, because it requires natural gas or coal-fired generators that kick in when the wind dies down or blows too hard; that’s about as energy-efficient as flooring your gas pedal every time the light turns green, only to slam on the breaks at each stoplight. Even the claim that wind-projects create jobs is suspect. Spain’s wind program cost $754k for every job created, and one of President Obama’s recent “green jobs” proposals would spend over $1,000,000 per job created! All this for a technology that cannot compete with existing power sources without such subsidies. “Recycled” power, on the other hand, does not receive such lavish support. Recycled power technologies are systems that use energy wasted from one process to fuel a second process. One prominent, recent example is the ArcelorMittal steel mill in East Chicago, IN. This company installed boilers mounted over their blast furnaces to heat water into steam, which in turn powers turbines, which produce electricity for the plant. ArcelorMittal is now saving over $100 million a year in electricity costs, all without direct government funding. The point is not that recycled energy projects should be federally subsidized (though that would certainly be a better use of taxpayer dollars than wind farms). Instead, the point is that the government has picked wind as a “winner” over recycling energy projects like the one in East Chicago. It has bet our money on the wrong horse.

There is a better system for allocating the financial resources of the nation with regard to energy production and consumption. It is the free decisions of responsible persons in a free marketplace of goods, services and ideas, under reasonable and necessary regulations. People, and thus companies, clearly want more environmental responsibility. They also want cost-effective solutions, instead of decisions made on the basis of how effective lobbyists are or how many campaign dollars come into political campaigns. Americans know how to find the greatest “bang for the buck.” Federal energy policy should focus on liberating American ingenuity. It should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, tilting like Don Quixote at windmills that our legislators imagine are evil fossil-fuel-breathing dragons – or mandating and subsidizing gargantuan windmills that generate expensive electricity only 30% of the time. When people are allowed to make free choices “We the People” will show ourselves to be like the wise woman of Proverbs 31:18, who “sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.”

Satellitegate: The new Climategate Scandal the Media won’t report By John O’Sullivan The controversial ‘Satellitegate’ scandal lifted off in the Summer of 2010 when an anonymous member of the public tipped off a popular climate skeptic blog that some strange temperature readings were being pumped out for the Michigan Lakes area where he lived. It was then that climatechangedispatch.com alerted me to the story and became quickly apparent that what their anonymous tipster had uncovered was just the tip of the iceberg We soon uncovered thousands of temperature readings that were held in the U.S. government’s official archives that appeared to show that obviously false super boiling surface temperatures were being fed automatically into national climate records. A large proportion of the bogus numbers for the Great Lakes region of the United States were between 300-412 degrees Fahrenheit. The data was published on the Michigan State University (MSU) website. MSU is part of the SeaWatch partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. Despite notifying the authorities of these shocking errors we were astounded at the subterfuge and reticence of government officials to rectify the problem. I wrote an article that quickly went viral around the climate blogs and NOAA and MSU officials sought to pass it off as a minor known fault whereby

satellite sensors occasionally misread temperatures off the tops of clouds rather than Earth’s surface, which no one was buying into insofar as cloud top temperatures just don’t reach 412 degrees! But even more sinister, I was portrayed as a crank blowing the story up out of all proportions. NOAA-16 Satellite is withdrawn from service Not about to let NOAA off the hook a team of experts rallied to me aid and further substantiated my theory that something untoward was going on here. The ‘Satellitegate’ scandal really hotted up when top scientists such as world renowned climatologists Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Tim and Dr. Charles Anderson confirmed that there the NOAA-16 satellite, the cause of problems, had been malfunctioning for years, was known to be faulty but nothing was done. With my story now getting great scientific credibility NOAA suddenly and bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn. An official US Government statement was issued that confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But independent scientists’ fears grew. Government researchers wouldn’t answer any follow up questions or publish the full extent of the discredited data archives. It became more likely that such behavior was to either hide gross incompetence or perhaps a wider conspiracy to cook the climate books with these super boiling temperatures mixed into the pot to raise global averages.

Experts such as Spencer, Christy and Ball confirmed that NOAA had been pumping out their proprietary temperature data products with these the junk numbers and because they were automatically fed into computers they may have unwittingly been used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. With NOAA declining to explain why they only removed ‘images’ from their archives and not all the contaminated data we are still left with the unanswered questions. Has the junk data contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees? At the time of writing this chapter NOAA still hadn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination despite my threats that my colleagues and I would file a freedom of information (FOIA) request to compel them under law to disclose the truth to the public. US Government has history of breaking Law over satellite failures But this won’t be the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrassing satellite problems. In 2008 website, desmogblog.com became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see ‘NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannibalized to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.

As desmogblog.com reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.” Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years Among the questions NOAA won’t answer are:

(1) How long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and

(2) Why was no action taken until the story caused a public

outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?

If NOAA and its climate researchers are guilty merely of “incompetence” they’d like us to believe then why not own up, apologies and make public the full details of the “mistake”? Sadly, media apologists for the government decline to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. How the Law addresses corruption But taxpayers have a right to hold public officials to account and to weed out the merely incompetent from the criminally corrupt. Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such sinister and conspiratorial acts.

Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York. Working hand in hand with independent scientists and legal experts skeptics fearing a huge global warming scam have started to file court action in a final desperate effort to force governments to come clean the issue. Once brought under the scrutiny of a cold legal light courts can then examine if climatologists can be proven to show that crucial mens rea (guilty mind) component as proof of a wrongful act. If there is no evidence to show intentional deception, then quite rightly, the courts will never convict. However, lawyers defending the indefensible in major corruption cases will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get corporate or government workers off the most serious charges. Defense attorneys will urge us to “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye that gambit often works. But does the public truly believe that time after time, as shown since Climategate, all those discredited climate researchers in various research facilities in England, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere around the world, all just made “mistakes”? Indeed, what often becomes apparent in the worst fraud cases is that a pattern of such “mistakes” committed again and again becomes all too apparent. Always these mistakes work in one direction-to the benefit of the perpetrators.

Then such “errors” may be believed to go way beyond mere chance- intentional misconduct is thus far more probable and juries may convict when the evidence so clearly goes one way. Why won’t NOAA and the U.S. Government answer? What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple unanswered questions:

(1) Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors” favor the alarmist (thus government) case?

(2) Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US

government when the story became big news? (3) Why won’t NOAA answer any further questions andr/o

release all the facts? After months of what appears to be a cover up growing public discontent fuels the suspicion that the science is fraudulent. There have been several Climategate ‘inquiries’ each exonerating the scientists. When those government apologists are wheeled they uniformly try to pass off these systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” – and crikey, it sure is! Those involved in ‘global warming’ research only appear to see what suits them. However, as we have discovered when correspondingly substantial frauds were exposed (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers-never the innocent victims (i.e. the duped taxpayers).

When our self-serving politicians finally are forced to come clean and admit that the global warming story has no scientific basis and the deliberately corrupt are exposed, be sure we’ll all be palmed off with the usual politicians apologism: “lessons will be learned!” But will anyone go to jail or be forced to pay back their ill-gotten gains? How self-preservation instinct leads to conspiracy to commit fraud As a former government employee as well as a long-time litigant against government corruption I’ve seen this all before: otherwise noble state workers, those middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced loyalty. Often it also boils down to self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’ You “cover your ass” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You (like your fellow government worker friend) know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution. Beating the corruption out of our Governments The small guy has it tough going up against that big government wall of bureaucrats when they suspect such wrongdoing. The best way to take on those faceless bullies is to unite with other interested individuals and form a collective that immediately has more clout. There’s strength in numbers-so start there.

There are many lawyers who have now registered their support in helping skeptics take on corrupt officials. When even a modicum of legal know how becomes involved progress can be frighteningly effective. Take for instance the stunning legal triumph achieved in New Zealand in October 2010. With the willing support of a barrister, skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) initiated a legal challenge last August against their government’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). The Coalition petitioned the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures. Within three months they had scored a monumental legal victory. New Zealand’s government via NIWA announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a fatal defeat for the government’s tainted climate reconstruction. As seen first with the stunning success of skeptics in the High Court in England in 2007, every time the global warming doomsayers are dragged into court and forced to defend their ‘science’ they lose. Back then former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore was taken to task over “nine lies” contained within his award-winning ‘documentary’ that also earned him the Nobel Peace Prize. Judge Michael Burton ruled that Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was not factual and contained errors made "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

The court ruled this a "political film" and the U.K. government promptly agreed it should not be shown in English schools again without teachers making it known that is was ruled to be green propaganda. Despite having the English High Court expose Gore’s the “nine lies” he and his cronies have never corrected their mistakes and have continued to push out their propaganda as if it were true. Shockingly, some governments around the world are still trying to foist Gore’s garbage on schoolchildren. By knowingly doing so they are also guilty of political indoctrination and may be hauled before the courts of any country that practises English common law and taken to task ( i.e. U.K., U.S. Australia, N.Z., Canada). Citizens in these countries can apply their own version of freedom of information laws or, like the Kiwi Coalition, present a petition to court with the help of a legal expert. What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that common law courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:

(1) Omission - conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;

(2) Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to

an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]

Referring back to our Satellitegate scandal we may see an example of the worst kind of hyper-inflated global warming data. It appeared on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud? Taxpayers have a legal right to know the full facts and what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed. Composing an FOIA or petition is not too difficult. The most important aspects are (1.) getting the questions composed as precisely as possible so as the government department cannot easily dismiss your request as too broad and overly burdensome, and (2.) framing the questions in the appropriate format requested by the government agency/court. As an example let’s look how my associates and I are tackling the Satellitegate FOIA. We have diligently written formal requests which have answered unsatisfactorily. In our follow up correspondence, which we must keep as evidence, we state in detail how NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer. We laid out in plain English our list of questions (what amounts to an interrogatory, if presented before a court).

We asked NOAA to address the following:

(1) Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?

(2) When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this

problem? (3) Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the

scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?

(4) Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether

satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?

(5) Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the

NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were cleared displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?

(6) Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem

log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor?

(7) Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me

with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?

(8) Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?

(9) Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?

These are all plainly written and precise questions that simply require straightforward questions. They give the government agency very little, if any ‘wriggle room’. What Are the Public Left to Think Now? As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act. Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence (e.g. as we see above with NOAA) that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault that may be proven to serve a pre-determined agenda, thus may be proof of fraud If the government department persists in their obstruction to cover up their “errors”, then collectively and consciously they have failed to act and as such a court may find them guilty of conspiracy to defraud so that they are made just as guilty as those who perpetrated the original wrong.

As we know from the Madoff scandal, bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists? Reference [1.] Koesel, MM; Turnbull, TL; Gourash, DF; ’Spoliation of evidence: sanctions and remedies for destruction of evidence’, (2006), American Bar Association.

Climategate One Year on - the Curious Case of a Lost Police Report By John O’Sullivan One year on and still British police do not report on their Climategate investigations. But with private police investigating the crime are we right to suspect a government cover up? Skeptics refuse to let Climategate go away quietly. As we shall see below - even 12 months on – legal analysts show how climate criminals can still be put behind bars. If only UK police applied a more powerful legal instrument: the Fraud Act (2006) discredited government scientists could be prosecuted today. Those of us with a modicum of legal training have been saying it all along; with the expertise of the Serious Fraud Office instead of those dawdling backwoods country bobbies, Professor Phil Jones and other accomplices linked with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, England could all be put behind bars serving a ten-year stretch. A Little Back Story to Refresh the Jaded Mind A year ago this week over a thousand damning emails were leaked (or hacked) and that signaled the end of public confidence in climate science. Independent scientists who studied the emails in detail affirm they reveal unlawful conduct by government paid scientists at the CRU, the world’s leading center for “climate data homogenization.”

The CRU’s “homogenization” process itself became the subject of much suspicion insofar as it was always known to be a grey area in science where unscrupulous characters could easily interpose personal bias and cherry-pick the data to make it say whatever they wanted. So dubious and discredited is the climatologists’ homogenization technique that the New Zealand government recently abandoned their nation’s “official” record that employed it. As history now shows an indelible stain is left on Britain’s credibility. Professor Jones, who ran CRU’s illicit operation, was allowed to get away with the crime destroying key climate data in blatant contempt of a lawful freedom of information (FOIA) requirement. Thereafter, a weak self-serving British government ensured that three subsequent “inquiries” whitewashed all involved. Never once did any of these apologists for fraud address the fakery in the science nor hear witness testimony against the accused. Despite tens of thousands of scientists condemning CRU’s junk science they were all ignored. Pointedly, no one was ever arrested for the alleged “hacking” and the neat way the files in those emails were collated and carefully itemized suggested that a whistleblower’s hand had been at work.

The Key Conspirator Admitted his Criminal Intent Any Crown prosecutor would slaver over the evidence against Jones. The leaked emails conclusively proved Jones admitted his criminal intent. Not only did he implicate himself he asked his colleagues to conspire with him to destroy key data because he said he would destroy everything in his possession rather than comply with the law. Indeed, when the police went in they found that Jones had carried out his threat - all the metadata - the calculations used to dishonestly ‘homogenize’ cooler raw temperatures into warmer ‘official’ data were gone. The ‘Jones dog ate it.’ What more proof does it take to get the British government to admit that climate crimes were committed? And no one involved, from the government to the police to the UK Information Commissioners’ Office has ever had the cahones to deny that CRU acted unlawfully - except, of course, the scum that run the University of East Anglia (UEA). At the very earliest opportunity they patted their man on the back and welcomed him back into that corrupt fold with the royal blessing of eco-fascist, Prince Charles. You have to feel sorry for a whole crop of honest hard-working UEA graduates now forever tarnished by this scandal and ashamed to admit they studied under such a degenerate regime. And still the apologists for eco-fraud will try to tell you that the police was not entrusted with investigating Jones, just the “hacking” incident – but they’d be wrong. That’s how wilfully ignorant of the law those cynics are.

Private Police Unit Ensures No Public Accountability in Cover Up Some of us with legal training smelt a rat when the investigation was first entrusted to Norfolk Constabulary. Why was this case, potentially the biggest international criminal fraud of all time palmed off onto plodding country constables? But then it got worse! Almost immediately it was announced that ‘aiding’ Norfolk’s ‘finest’ was a secretive private police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET). Yes, you read that right - a private police unit was in on the act. Now why would this be, we may wonder? Perhaps it may have to do with their pension fund? And where the hell was the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) when required? The SFO are mandated under law to take over any fraud case where more than £500,000 is involved and/or there’s an international dimension. Moreover, unlike the SFO the NDET were under no obligation to abide by the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act. Like Jones, they got a green light from the authorities to play fast and loose with the evidence and then get away with it. So throughout the coldest winter for 30 years progress in the investigations froze as completely as the weather. With no SFO in the picture (publicly accountable) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and NDET not accountable, being totally exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) this investigation went nowhere fast.

Norfolk’s plodders and the secretive NDET, maintaining a clandestine line of communication with ACPO, that other private and unaccountable clique, had a clear run to implement the cover up. It’s lasted a year so far - can they go the full distance? Such is the woeful state of British justice today. Let’s Nail the Climate Fraudsters Today we see the same navel-gazing mainstream media not telling you the truth about how Jones and his accomplices can still be arrested, tried and jailed under the Fraud Act. Unlike that lesser toothless statute there is no time bar at all under the tougher Fraud Act when hunting down such complex international criminal conspiracies. But why in a recession, should a cash-strapped government or their buddies in the media let you know you’ve been conned about climate in so many different ways? Britain’s political masters deigned to give you three whitewash inquiries and one sham police investigation - what else do you Briton’s want? The clowns in charge have a recession to beat (you know, the one they dragged you all into!) and they must protect at all costs the needless tens of billions a year they want from you in crippling green taxes imposed under their foolish Climate Change Act (2007). Under that travesty Britain is legally mandated to cut is carbon dioxide emissions by a ridiculous 80% during a period when our planet is cooling!

Thus duped by a wilfully self-serving and morally corrupt British government, it is public apathy that lets the corrupt get away with stealing the shirts off your backs. But nonetheless, many of us are still determined to ‘crack the climate fraud wide open.’

Climate Change: The Keywords (Part 1 of 3) By Geraldo Luís Lino 06 November 2010

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/8076-climate-change-the-key-words-part-1-of-3

Ice age Earth at glacial maximum.

In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Taken almost as a dogma, the AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks and is volleyed relentlessly upon us by the media and many scientific institutions (including some pseudo-scientific ones), while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.

The threat allegedly posed by that supposed world emergency would justify the need of at least halving the human carbon emissions until mid-century, meaning a draconian reduction of the use of fossil fuels worldwide. Despite the drastic potential impact of such measures upon the living standards of all nations, the failure to do so and of establishing a “low-carbon economy,” we are told, would usher the environmental apocalypse in. Well, fortunately for Mankind it won’t.

However, that avalanche has gone too far. So, it’s high time to turn the alarmist page and discard the buzzwords with which

the subject has been marketed once and for all: (undeserved) hype, (unmotivated) scare, (unnecessary) restrictions and (unacceptable) sacrifices. In their stead new keywords are needed to put the climatic phenomena into their proper perspective again: proportion, knowledge and resilience.

Let’s begin with trying to give the climate theme the right proportion concerning its nature and relationship with Mankind.

The environmentalist propaganda machine has ascribed an intrinsically negative and threatening connotation to the expression climate change, as if the climatic oscillations of the last century and a half were something unprecedented and implying that it should be combated at any cost – even if this would hamper the development perspectives of most of the developing countries (and as if Mankind had the necessary knowledge and means to do so). Notwithstanding, changing is the natural condition of the Earth’s climate – in the historical and geological time scales there has never been and there will never be such a thing as a “static” climate (so, climate change is sort of a pleonasm). As a rule of thumb, during 90% of the Phanerozoic eon (the latest 570 million years) the Earth has experienced temperatures higher than the current ones, and 90% of the Quaternary period (the latest 2.6 million years) have elapsed under glacial conditions and temperatures much lower than the current ones.

The Quaternary has also witnessed the most frequent and rapid climatic oscillations in the Earth’s geological history, alternating between cool glacial and warm interglacial periods

in 41,000- and 100,000-year cycles. In the last 800,000 years the longer cycles have prevailed and the Earth experienced eight Ice Ages approximately 90,000-year long separated by eight interglacial periods averaging 10,000-11,000 years (although there are controversies about their length).

During the Ice Ages the average temperatures were 8-10oC lower than the current ones, the sea levels were 120-130 m lower and much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by an ice pack up to 4 km thick, down to the 40oN parallel (the latitude of nowadays New York). During the interglacials the average temperatures reached 4-6oC and the sea levels 3-6 m above the current ones. Our own interglacial the Holocene, which started 11,500-11,700 years ago, had average temperatures up to 4oC and sea levels up to 3 m above the current ones between 5,000-6,000 years ago (Middle Holocene).

The transition periods between the warming and cooling phases and vice versa, when the average temperatures rose or fell the 6-8oC that make the difference between an interglacial and an Ice Age, have lasted from a few centuries to a few decades. [1]

The genus Homo appeared on Earth soon after the onset of the Quaternary. Our species the Homo sapiens sapiens emerged during the penultimate Ice Age, somewhere between 150,000-200,000 years ago. And our problem-solver, city-builder, technological, scientific, industrial and artistic Civilization has been existing entirely in the Holocene and its warmer temperatures that allowed the advent of agriculture.

Some useful tips emerge from such facts:

• The wild oscillations of the Quaternary are the general climatic condition faced by Humankind ever. We have been coping with them quite successfully and nothing suggests that we cannot continue to do so (as long as common sense and non-partisan science prevail).

• They outline a background “noise” that by far overshadows the tiny rise of the temperature and sea levels (and their gradients) that have occurred since the late 19th century – respectively 0.8oC and 0.2 m, according to the IPCC. [2] This simply means that there is no scientific way to attribute causes other than natural to these, because the background “noise” has yielded much wider and faster oscillations of the temperatures and sea levels occurring before the Industrial Revolution.

• The Quaternary climate dynamics seems to be “self-adjusted” to the boundary conditions outlined by the Ice Ages and interglacials. So, the suggested risk of a “runaway warming” or some kind of climate disruption from the human carbon emissions is far-fetched, specially regarding the much ballyhooed “magic number” of 2oC warming that supposedly could not be exceeded (a political contrivance admitted by its own author, the German physicist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in an interview to the Spiegel Online website). [3] During the interglacials there were higher temperatures without any kind of “runaway” disturbance.

Real global emergencies As to the real global emergencies requiring urgent actions on new levels of international attention, cooperation, coordination and funding, there is no shortage of them. For those seriously interested in this business, here are some that do not exist only in supercomputer-run mathematical models and that would benefit very much from fractions of the colossal amounts of money – and human resources – that have been wasted with the non-existent AGW:

• The world’s most serious environmental troubles, particularly in the developing countries, are those related to the lack of water and sanitation infrastructure, like water pollution and the water-borne diseases that kill a child every 15 seconds in the developing countries, according to the World Health Organization. [4] A 2007 poll conducted by the British Medical Journal among physicians all over the world elected fresh water and sanitation infrastructure as the greatest medical advance of the last 150 years – a “privilege” still unavailable for over 40% of the world’s population. [5] In Brazil, less than half of the population have access to sewage systems and two thirds of the child internments in the public health system are due to water-borne diseases. [6] (I’ve never seen Al Gore, Hollywood stars or the major environmental NGOs campaigning for sanitation.)

• Hunger and its consequences kill a child every six seconds, according to the FAO. [7] Almost one billion people all over the world suffer from chronic hunger, a scenario that will surely worsen due to the current speculation-driven price rise affecting some basic staples. [8] Besides the immoral waste of productive

lives, the annual economic cost of such a tragedy in productivity, revenue, investment and consumption losses is estimated in the order of hundreds of billion dollars. [9]

• The lack of access by much of the world’s population to modern energy sources. Dung and firewood, the most primitive fuels known to Mankind, are still the basic resources for the daily needs of most of the Sub-Saharan Africans (besides being major sources of deforestation and respiratory diseases). Although with lower figures, the same happens in much of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And, as over 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are provided by coal, oil and natural gas, it’s not difficult to ascertain the potential consequences of the intended restriction of their uses, as proposed by many scientists, environmentalists, politicians, carbon traders and all the people terrified by the AGW scare stories. Besides that, thermoelectric plants generate about two thirds of the world’s electricity, the rest being almost totally provided by hydroelectric and nuclear plants (also increasingly targeted by the environmentalists). [10]

The list of real troubles is much longer, but these few examples suffice to demonstrate the distortions of the agenda of global discussions, both among the policymakers and the public opinion in general (which, in the case of the climate issues, also reflect a widespread deficiency of scientific education among the educated strata of the societies).

In any case, make no mistake. Barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough, there won’t be large scale

replacements for the fossil fuels until late this century at least. Massive national and international investments in efficient and integrated multi-modal and urban transportation systems may and should help to reduce the use of automobiles and trucks, particularly in the overcrowded big cities. For power generation, there are the options of harnessing the hydroelectric potential still available, the expansion of nuclear energy and the interlinking of continental and even inter-continental power grids in order to enhance both the energy efficiency and security for all countries involved (forget the current “alternative sources” for large scale uses, they are not technologically and economically feasible for energizing urban and industrial societies). However – and hence –, coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be sources of development and progress for a long time yet – and it is unacceptable that its growing use be hindered by an imaginary threat.

Sources:

1. The Paleomap Project, website of University of Texas (Arlington) geologist Dr. Christopher R. Scotese, provides a good overview on the Earth's geologic, geographic and climatic evolution over the past 1.1 billion years, with a well-written text and didactic animated maps that are useful and interesting for general readers and professional geoscientists alike (www.scotese.com). For an excellent description of the Quaternary climatic history, see the Chapter 2 of Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009). Spanish language readers may find particularly interesting the website of Dr. Antón Uriarte, a geographer at the Universidad del País Vasco,

Paleoclimatologia: Historia del Clima y Cambios Climáticos (http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/).

2. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

3. Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufette, “A Superstorm for Global Warming Research”, Spiegel Online, 1/04/2010, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html.

4. Oliver Cumming, Tackling the silent killer: the case for sanitation. London: WaterAid, July 2008, http://www.wateraid.org/documents/tacking_the_silent_killer_the_case_for_sanitation.pdf.

5. Sarah Boseley, “Sanitation rated the greatest medical advance in 150 years”, The Guardian, 1/19/2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/19/health.medicineandhealth3.

6. Marcelo Cortes Neri (Coord.), Trata Brasil: Saneamento e Saúde. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2007.

7. Bread for the World, “Hunger Facts: International”, http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html.

8. FAO, “Hunger”, http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.

9. FAO/Alessandra Benedetti, “Hunger on the rise: soaring prices add 75 million people to global hunger rolls”, 9/18/2008, http://www.fao.org/news/story/ch/item/7544/icode/en/.

10. International Energy Agency statistics page, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp.

Climate Change: The Keywords (Part 2 of 3) By Geraldo Luís Lino 14 November 2010

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/8118-climate-change-the-keywords-part-2-of-3

Albert Einstein’s response to the 1931 pamphlet "100 authors against Einstein," commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

The second keyword for the long overdue reassessment of the climatic issues is knowledge, meaning a more comprehensive and better understanding of the climate dynamics.

However, as a prerequisite it is necessary to clear up a concept commonly misused and abused by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) defenders: the idea that “science is settled”

and that the so-called “scientific consensus” on the subject would be objected to only by some handfuls of diehard “skeptics.”

For starters, there is no such a thing like “settled science,” neither in Climatology nor in any other branch of science. The body of scientific knowledge is an open-ended and permanently ongoing construction that is always open to new evidences, new hypotheses, debate, questioning and revision – that’s how real science advances.

Also, “consensus” is a concept alien to science, which is not a “democratic” activity whose advance is driven by the weight of the number of followers of a certain line of thinking or theory – but by a permanent process of convergence between new hypotheses and evidences collected in the physical world.

Perhaps the best symbol of the meaninglessness of such numbers in science was Albert Einstein’s anthological response to the 1931 pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein,” which was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, that did not fit the canons of the “Arian science.” He said then: “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.” [1]

The same distortion has affected the concept of skepticism, which was granted a pejorative connotation in order to label the critics of the AGW – as if a permanent and healthy skepticism were not an indispensable requisite for any scientist

worth of his or her salt. As the US National Academy of Sciences felt compelled to remind in a 1995 booklet:

“The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors… Organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.” [2]

It is indeed regrettable that this sober advice has been deliberately overlooked by a good deal of the scientific community involved in the climate research and related themes (beginning with the Academy itself). Perhaps, in many cases this attitude has been motivated by the lure of the incentives offered by the AGW machine – plentiful research grants, mediatic exposition, prestige, the professional pride of making part of a branch of science elevated to stardom, business consulting opportunities and many others.

On the other hand, besides the hundreds of billion dollars that have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a theory that is not supported by the physical world evidences, the “warmist” thrust is harming science in quite dangerous ways. First, it is pushing science aside from the perspective of providing a reasoned and relatively well informed assessment of the climate dynamics that may provide an useful guidance for long-term strategies and public policies – absolutely necessary due to the climate’s enormous importance in the human affairs. Second, it is distorting the public perception of science

in such a way that the non-partisan climate scientists will likely have a hard time trying to regain the public trust after the seemingly unavoidable wear and tear of the alarmist outlook.

History offers a gloomy precedent of such poisoning of science by ideology and special interests: the infamous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union, the ruthless opposition to genetics headed by Trofim D. Lysenko and his cohorts between the 1930s and 1960s. In addition to the physical elimination of stubborn scientists who resisted the “consensual official line” (the “skeptics” of the time), the price of such an irrationality pandemics was enormous, costing the Soviet biological and agricultural sciences a half a century hold-up whose consequences are felt still today.

The AGW scare and its political agenda of restricting the use of fossil fuels are serious candidates to the condition of post-modern equivalents of “Lysenkoism.” [3]

As for the IPCC, it has been a political contrivance from the beginning, dedicated to the task of proving “the risk of human-induced climate change.” [4] So, its methodological procedures are suited to its political agenda of “justifying the greenhouse gases emission control, specially carbon dioxide,” as it was aptly described by S. Fred Singer, one of the deans of the atmospheric sciences still on duty. [5]

In fact, they are limited to a compilation and review of scientific (and others not so much) climate-related works

published in between the issuing of its assessment reports (four so far). While this method may be useful to provide some overview of the state of the art of the climatic research, it cannot be relied upon for providing a more realistic and functional understanding of the climate dynamics.

With the obsessive fixation on carbon dioxide, the AGW thrust inoculated the climate science with the “reductionism virus,” the epistemological concept according to which complex phenomena can be understood by means of the sum of the understanding of their constituent parts, as with the solving of a puzzle game or the assemblage of a complex machine. However, if such an approach is useful for technological and engineering uses or even for some more simple phenomena, it is completely unsuitable in the case of complex, non-linear and chaotic systems like climate.

For this reason, the Apollo Program, the greatest technological accomplishment of the 20th century, could be achieved by NASA with a total computing capacity inferior to a modern cell phone’s – simply because all the scientific and technological requisites for that great enterprise were based on known physical and chemical laws and properties. In contrast, all the world’s computers now existing linked together could not provide a precise simulation of the climate dynamics – because the programmers would lack the proper knowledge of its functioning as a system and of all the interacting factors that influence it.

The present supercomputer-run Global Climate Models (GCMs) so dear to the AGW defenders are quintessential reductionist instruments. In a simplified way, a typical GCM divides the atmosphere in grid “boxes” of hundreds or thousands of square kilometers and some kilometers high, and tries to ascertain and quantify the energy flows and their influences on the climatic parameters in and between the “boxes.” As every “box” comprises several degrees of latitude and longitude and a multiplicity of physical and biological environments (kind of surface, relief, vegetation etc.), one can imagine the complexity of the process – that cannot provide but a very crude approximation of the physical world. Besides, as many factors that influence such flows are poorly known or even unknown, they are usually “adjusted,” “fixed,” (“parametrized” in the jargon) or simply ignored by the modelers. So, no wonder the discrepancies between the models and the real world observations are generally considerable. [6]

For this reason, it is hard to see how a comprehensive understanding of the climate dynamics could be obtained by putting “atmospheric boxes” together like the pieces of a global scale puzzle – a practice whose uses should be restricted to academic drills.

For that task an “holistic” approach is needed, one that regards the climate as an integral system in itself and study its evolution along the Earth’s geological history thoroughly, taking into account all the astrophysical, atmospheric, oceanic, geological, geomorphologic and biological factors that influence it and their multiple and complex interactions, many of them – it’s worth repeating – are still poorly known.

The model of epistemological approach and international scientific cooperation needed for a serious advancement of the climate science is not the IPCC, but the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (IGY), the remarkable effort that united tens of thousands of scientists from 66 countries at the height of the Cold War in order to advance the systemic and comprehensive knowledge of the Earth dynamics and its interactions with the Sun and the Cosmos. The motivation and the mood of that great enterprise, as well as the “holistic” kind of approach chosen for its research programs, can be seen in the following passage of one of the many contemporary popular books written to present the IGY to the general public:

“(…) The whole Earth and the ‘laboratory’ of the Solar System are necessary for a comprehensive study of the weather, the air, the oceans and the ice of the Earth; the upper atmosphere or ionosphere; the solid earth; the energy that comes at the Earth from space, and the Sun, the main source of energy. These phenomena are too closely interrelated to be studied separately… All of the great phenomena of the dynamic Earth are being studied at one time, ‘synoptically,’ and the millions of facts being gathered will be compared. The IGY is the largest fact-finding enterprise ever undertaken. It is seeking answers to some of the most important questions that man has ever asked.” [7]

The IGY still stands as Mankind’s greatest collective scientific enterprise ever. The spirit of global cooperation, the epistemological approach, the methodologies, standards and procedures developed for its coordinated and joint researches, the huge mass of gathered data, the quality of the obtained results and the optimistic visions of science and its role for the

progress it helped to instill among the general public were enormous contributions for the advancement of science and brought forth a great deal of benefits for all Mankind – a feat diametrically opposed to the disservice done by the IPCC.

One can only regret that the 50th anniversary of that great endeavor has gone almost unnoticed by the global media and academia.

Perhaps if the development of the “holistic” approach to the geophysical phenomena that inspired the IGY had not been interrupted by the “warmist” tsunami, climate science could be now much more advanced towards the epistemological “quantum leap” needed for the systemic understanding of the Earth’s climate.

In any case, the revival of that pioneering and gripping spirit (and the corresponding dumping of the “warmism”) is a necessity if we really intend to be serious about the climate.

Sources:

1. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988.

2. National Academy of Sciences, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington: National Academy Press, 1995.

3. See the Wikipedia entries for “Trofim Lysenko” and “Lysenkoism.”

4. IPCC, “Principles governing IPCC work”, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf.

5. S. Fred Singer (Ed.), Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate. Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 2008, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf.

6. For a general overview of the climate models see the Wikipedia entry for “Global climate model.”

7. Alexander Marshack, The World in Space: The Story of the International Geophysical Year. New York: Dell Publishing

Climate Change: The Keywords (Part 3 of 3) By Geraldo Luís Lino 18 November 2010

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/8145-climate-change-the-keywords-part-3-of-3

With 150,000-plus years inheritance of accumulated knowledge, Mankind has no shortage of conditions for facing any environmental scenarios created by the natural oscillations of the climate dynamics.

The word resilience can be described as the capacity of resistance, elasticity and recovery from physical shocks. This is a property that Mankind has always demonstrated to possess while facing all kinds of threats to its evolution, and this is also the third and most important keyword for the needed reassessment of the climate debate.

Despite some transitory interruptions in the civilizational process and a lot of setbacks and tragedies of all dimensions, the intrinsically creative, associative and synergetic nature of

our species have granted Mankind the evolving capacity (in terms of knowledge and socio-political-economic relations) and the resilience needed for overcoming all sorts of challenges so far: adverse climatic conditions, food scarcity, epidemic and pandemic diseases, natural hazards, conflicts of all kinds, bad rulers, short-sighted leaders, and with unfortunate frequency, irrationality pandemics fed by exotic ideas disconnected from any coherent process of understanding of the universal laws – like environmentalism and its standard bearer the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory.

It is worth reminding that our species appeared in the penultimate Ice Age somewhere in Africa and set out from there to conquer all the continents under much more unfavorable climatic conditions than those prevailing in the Holocene period, the last 12,000 years. It was under the harsh conditions prevailing during most of that time span that our forebears developed the “physical” and “social” technologies needed not only for their mere survival, but also for the advent of civilized life: fire, tools, sophisticated hunting weapons, the taming of animals, articulated language, capacity for group action and even profound abstract concepts like the intuition of a principle of universal order and a refined artistic sense (exemplified by the magnificent paintings in the Altamira and Lascaux caves and by the 35,000 year-old flutes made out of animal bones found in Southeast Germany). Only agriculture had to wait for the onset of our warm interglacial the Holocene.

So, with that 150,000-plus years inheritance of accumulated knowledge, Mankind has no shortage of conditions for facing any environmental scenarios created by the natural oscillations of the climate dynamics, with all the temperature, humidity, ice cover, sea level and other changes that may be expected in a foreseeable future. The keyword is ensuring the needed resilience for such capacity – instead of sacrificing the wellbeing and progress perspectives of much of the world’s population for an irrational obsession with a tiny rising of the thermometers and tide gauges.

More than that: for the first time ever, Mankind holds the necessary and sufficient body of knowledge and technical and physical resources for providing the virtual totality of the material needs for a population even larger than the existing one, opening the possibility of universalizing – in an enduring and entirely sustainable way – the general wellbeing levels enjoyed by the most advanced countries, in terms of water, sanitation, energy, transportation and communications infrastructure, health and education services and other conquests of modern civilized life. Despite the fallacious neo-malthusian/environmentalist arguments against such perspective, the main obstacles to its fulfillment in less than two generations are political and mental, not physical or environmental.

On the other hand, it is ironic that cooling conditions have ever been much more troublesome for Mankind, specially in what regards to human health and agricultural impacts, traveling and infrastructure disruptions and many other negative effects. Thus, we are the first generation in History who are worried

about the warming of the planet – a condition that has always proven to be favorable to most of the biosphere (indeed, before Climatology was converted into a “politicized science,” the warmest phases of the interglacial periods were named “climatic optima”).

In fact, there are some indications that the next two decades or so will bring a cooling trend, due to the coincidence of a cycle of weak solar activity and cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and other cycles of sea surface temperatures, a combination that helps to explain much of the temperature oscillation during the last century. [1, 2, 3]

It is an statistically-proven fact that the natural catastrophes (including the climatic ones) usually cause much more physical harm and human suffering in the less developed countries that are less provided with modern infrastructure, including efficient public services of all kinds. Hence, the most intelligent and efficient way of increasing Mankind’s overall resilience for facing the inexorable climate changes – warm or cool, dry or wet climates – is by means of raising its general wellbeing and progress to the levels permitted by modern science and technology, and not by their restriction or virtual “freezing” – condition that would arise from the insane “de-carbonization” of the economy advocated by the followers of the AGW cult.

Resilience means the redundance and flexibility of the societies’ physical conditions of survival and functioning, allowing them to reduce their overall vulnerability to the climate oscillations and other potentially dangerous natural

phenomena. Such requisites include things like the availability of genetically modified seeds for all climatic conditions, the redundance of food sources, food storage capacity, transportation, energy and communications infrastructure, and many others.

A recent demonstration of such concept was provided by the disruption of the international air traffic by the ash clouds from the eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökul volcano. In that case, the flexibility that allowed Europe to cope with the troubles caused by the closing of its air space was partially provided by the continent’s dense and efficient land transportation grid.

By the way, the enormous disturbances caused by an eruption that barely reached 4 in the logarithmic Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 8 points should call into question the criteria of choice for the setting of Mankind’s collective efforts agenda. We can only think about the potential impacts of eventual mega-eruptions like the also Icelandic Laki’s in 1783 (VEI 6) or the Indonesia’s Tambora in 1815 (VEI 7), on a much more densely populated, urbanized and interdependent world, with its vulnerable transport, energy and communication grids. [4]

Obviously, phenomena like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes cannot be controlled, but a better knowledge about their causes and monitoring systems capable of detecting their forewarning signals could contribute quite a lot to mitigate their destructive impacts. In some countries there are promising researches aimed at improving this detection capacity with the help of terrestrial and space sensors. However, the scale of these initiatives is still limited and the

same happens with the needed coordination of efforts at the international level (all such initiatives would also benefit from a tiny fraction of the concern and resources that have been wasted with the false emergency of the AGW).

In physical terms, Mankind’s wellbeing and resilience will depend pretty much on a meaningful increase of the per capita energy use by the less developed populations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, that will have to be multiplied by factors of 3 to 6 in order to reach at least the current levels of the former Soviet countries (about half of the OECD countries’). Such a goal cannot be reached without a large scale increase of the use of coal, oil and natural gas, which already provide over 80% of the world energy consumption and two thirds of the electricity generation [5] – and for which there won’t be large scale replacements until the second half of the century at least (the enhanced use of nuclear energy will also play an important role).

As for their physical availability, the recurring and pessimistic “Peak Oil” reports must be taken with the due grain of salt. The recent discoveries of ultra-deep oil deposits off the Brazilian coast, in the Gulf of Mexico and other places, besides the promising development of the technologies for exploring the vast and widespread reserves of shale gas, suggest that the alleged limits to the hydrocarbon production expansion are not at sight yet.

By the same token, the possibility of exploring ultra-deep abiotic hydrocarbons must be considered. Although it is contested by the Western mainstream geosciences thinking,

the inorganic formation of hydrocarbons is admitted by Russian and Ukrainian scientists since the mid-20th century and certain non-sedimentary oil deposits have been successfully explored in those countries for decades. [6] Such promising possibilities were reinforced by experimental evidences of hydrocarbon formation in the Earth’s upper mantle, in recent experiments performed in the US and Sweden. [7, 8]

All these developments make still more relevant and urgent the neutralization of the AGW scare for the guidance of long-term political strategies.

Granted, the dismantling of the vast array of political, scientific, economic, mediatic and other interests grouped around the AGW scare is not an easy task, but it is fundamental for the future of Civilization and its improvement. Fortunately, the inconsistencies of the “warmist” scenario, the unscientific practices of many of its champions and the physical/economic unfeasibility of the “de-carbonization” agenda are becoming increasingly evident to the general public, as well as the quarrels among developed and developing countries on who should bear the brunt of the sacrifices to implement it and who should pay the bill. Besides that, an increasing number of undeterred scientists and motivated laymen all over the world have taken into their hands the crucial task of returning the discussion about climate change to the place it should never have been stolen from: the ground of real science, common sense and the common good.

As a way of conclusion, I share with the readers the inspiring words of two great scientists who have excelled in the struggle against the AGW irrationality and, above all, in the battle for giving back real science its due place in the guidance of the human affairs.

First, let’s hear Richard Lindzen in a 2001 testimony to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, speaking about the really important priorities concerning the climate issues:

“The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one. From my provincial perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such understanding.” [9]

Then, let’s call on Freeman Dyson, who reminds us of human nature itself and of our universal mission, both quite forgotten in these gloomy times of cultural pessimism and inconsequent and opportunistic catastrophism:

“Boiled down to one sentence, my message is the unboundedness of life and the consequent unboundedness of human destiny.

As a working hypothesis to explain the riddle of our existence, I propose that our universe is the most interesting of all possible universes, and our fate as human beings is to make it so.” [10]

1. Luiz Carlos Baldicero Molion, “Aquecimento global, El Niños, manchas solares, vulcões e Oscilação Decadal do Pacífico” (Global Warming, El Niños, Sunspots, Volcanos and Pacific Decadal Oscillation), Revista Climanálise, Ano 3, No. 1., 1-5 (2006), http://climanalise.cptec.inpe.br/~rclimanl/revista/pdf/Artigo_Aquecimento_0805.pdf. 2. Joseph D'Aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895” (2008), http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf. 3. Horst Borchert, “Südpazifische Oszillation und Kosmische Strahlung” (South Pacific Oscillation and Cosmic Radiation) (2010), http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/SO_Borchert.pdf. 4. See the Wikipedia entry for “Volcanic Explosivity Index.” 5. See the International Energy Agency statistics page, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp. 6. See the session “Abiotic deep origin of hydrocarbons: Myth or reality?” of the 33rd International Geological Congress (Oslo, 2008), http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/Sess_182.html.

7. Anton Kolesnikov, Vladimir G. Kutcherov and Alexander F. Goncharov, “Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions”, Nature Geoscience 2, 566-570 (2009). 8. Carnegie Institute for Science, “Hydrocarbons in Deep Earth?”, 7/27/2009, http://carnegiescience.edu/news/hydrocarbons_deep_earth. 9. Richard Lindzen, “Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001”, http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf. 10. Freeman J. Dyson, Infinite in all Directions. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.

Author Biographies Mišo Alkalaj (Slovenia) Mišo is a mathematician and Head of the Center for Network Infrastructure at the J. Stefan Institute in Ljubljana, Slovenia. His works include textbooks on computer technology and recently a popular science book on anthropogenic global warming which explains the major flaws of UN IPCC dogma ("Podnebna prevara" (The Climate Fraud), Orbis, October 2010). Hans Jelbring, PhD (Sweden) Dr Jelbring obtained his PhD in Climatology, Stockholm University, and has an MSc, Royal Institute of Technology Alan Siddons (Unites States) Former radio chemist but now leading climate researcher and science writer Alan has been compiling many chapters on the myriad of errors that have been and still are underwritten by climate alarmists and realists alike. With clear examples and common sense this author will illustrate where and why it all went wrong when the climate alarm bells started ringing. Joseph A. Olson, PE (United States) Retired Texan engineer and science writer, Joe Olson PE is an internationally respected science writer with over 100 major civil engineering and climate-related articles to his name.

Timothy Ball PhD (Canada) Professor Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] Professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. Dr Ball came to the fore after his appearance in the sensational British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tim has an extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition with additional experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics. Charles Anderson, PhD (Unites States) Dr Charles Anderson is a materials physicist with a 38-year career in the use of radiation to characterize and analyze the properties of materials. He especially enjoys the use of multi-discipline techniques to solve complex materials problems quickly and efficiently. Dr Anderson has worked as a laboratory scientist for the Dept. of the Navy, Lockheed Martin Laboratories and since 1995 has owned and operated Anderson Material Evaluation, Inc.. He has an Sc.B. in Physics from Brown University and his Ph.D. was earned at Case Western Reserve University studying the surface magnetization of nickel single crystals using Mössbauer spectroscopy and Auger electron spectroscopy.

The analysis of surfaces and near-surface volumes has been a major component of his work since, using such techniques as x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, infra-red spectroscopy, x-ray dispersive spectroscopy, thermal analysis, and light microscopy. Dr Anderson has published 29 scientific articles and written thousands of technical reports for his commercial customers. In 2000 he became interested in the claims that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide would cause catastrophic damage to the climate and quickly became skeptical. He has written about the many problems with that hypothesis frequently on his blog since. Philip Foster (England) Philip has an MA in Natural Sciences and is a retired Church Miniter. He also runs a publishing house, SMP Ltd. Hans Schreuder (Holland) Dutch born and trained but now retired analytical chemist and international technical contractor Hans Schreuder has long been a staunch and highly regarded critic of the greenhouse gas theory and a leading commentator, using his website as a publishing hub for fellow scientists critical of the theory. Hans has written many articles on the subject and submitted a 109-page written report, supplemented with a 45 minute oral submission, to the Northern Ireland Climate Change Committee in May 2009

Vincent Gray (New Zealand) Vincent is a veteran scientist with a PhD in Chemistry from Cambridge University, a long career in UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. He has published well over 100 papers. He is the author of "The Greenhouse Delusion" and many other publications on the subject of Climate Change, including regular NZ Climate Truth newsletters. Nils-Axel Mörner PhD (Sweden) Prof- Emeritus Nils-Axel Mörner has opened an independent research institution on Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, in Torekov in South Sweden. During the period 1999–2003 Prof. Mörner was president for the INQUA (The International Association of Quaternary Research) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, with a sub-commission (nr 3) devoted to the Indian Ocean. In the Spring 2000 edition of Integrated Coastal Zone Management he published an article on the Indian Ocean and its special sea level problems. Malcolm Robert (Australia) BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago), Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust) John Droz Jr (Unites States) Physicist and Environmental Advocate, John received undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University. He subsequently worked for GE/AESD (Utica, NY), Mohawk Data Sciences (Herkimer, NY), and Monolithic Memories (Cupertino, CA). http://windpowerfacts.info/

John Rosenthal (Unites States) John writes regularly on European politics for publications such as the Weekly Standard and the Daily Caller. More of his work can be found at www.trans-int.com Paul Driessen (Unites States) Paul is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. Jonathan J. Drake (United Kingdom) Jonathan is Senior Electronics Physicist at a UK based company where he designs instruments for geological exploration. He has over 20 years experience in this field and is familiar with a wide variety of measurement and data processing techniques.

In his own time, he has studied key climate-related topics and analysed the associated datasets using simple pragmatic methods which have lead to interpretations and conclusions that are somewhat different to those of the presently accepted paradigm.

Benjamin B. Phillips (Unites States) Benjamin is assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at South western Baptist Theological Seminary's Houston Campus and a research fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a national network of clergy, scientists, economists, and other experts committed to helping the poor and caring for the environment. Research Fellow at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, see www.ResistingtheGreenDragon.com

John O’Sullivan (United K ingdom & United States) Legal analyst and specialist writer on anti-corruption, John O'Sulli van is the coordinator of these exciting new books and will take the reader on a tour through the maze of confusion surrounding almost all aspects of climate alarm. John is an accredited academic who taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit. John is currently Google’s most read writer on the greenhouse gas theory (2010) and boasts over 100 major international science articles. In the U.S. his work is featured in the National Review, America's most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion. Among other internationally esteemed publications he has appeared in both the China Daily, the Number One English portal in China, as well as India Times, the prime source of business news in India.

As a direct consequence of controversial revelations in his ‘Satellite-gate’ article the U.S. Government swiftly removed a degraded orbital space satellite from service. Geraldo Luís L ino (Brazil) Geraldo is a Brazili an geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish)

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jonathan Drake My wife and family deserve special recognition and gratitude for their great patience during my long periods of study and analysis. I’d also like to thank all those people that have given their support and encouragement in the background.