Carbon, Fact or Fiction

The following was sent by a long-time reader

______________________________________________

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know...it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'
Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

---

I clicked on the Clarke Medal.....last link to see if this is ligit.........seems to be.

VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born12 February 1946 (age 67)
ResidenceAustralia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia> NationalityAustralian
FieldsEarth Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Science> , Geology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology> , Mining Engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Engineering> InstitutionsUniversity of New England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_%28Australia%29> ,University of Newcastle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle_%28Australia%29> ,University of Melbourne <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne> ,University of Adelaide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Adelaide>
Alma mater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater> University of New South Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales> ,Macquarie University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University>
Thesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis> The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia <http://www.worldcat.org/title/pipe-deposits-of-tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth-in-eastern-australia/oclc/221677073> (1976)
Notable awardsEureka Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prize> (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_Medal> (2003), Clarke Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal> (2004)

50 Million Refugees...NOT

A few years ago, the UN predicted that 50 million refugees would be created by Global Warming...a prediction that  has yet to come to pass...

Here's the map the UN produced to show those areas that would be threatened.

But..it hasn't happened, and I don't think it will.

HT:  Daily Caller

Global Warming Hypocrit: Robert Redford Edition

Global warming supporters say the science is "settled," yet it's most ardent supporters rarely live by what they say they believe.  Here's a short film on Robert Redford highlighting his hypocracy.

Redford is one of the main opponents of a plan by the Pacific Union College to build an eco-village in Angwin California. The college says it needs the funds because of a dire financial situation. The village is close to Redford’s vineyard in the Napa Valley. However whilst publicly opposing this development “to preserve the rural heritage” Redford has been quietly selling development lots in the Sundance Preserve for $2 million. These lots are intended for vacation homes close to Redford’s Sundance Ski Resort.


The double standard is revealed in a short film Robert Redford Hypocrite which has just been released.

Film director Ann McElhinney said the film is not criticising Redford for selling his property.

“It is great that in a recession Mr Redford can find so many buyers. I am delighted that those houses will be built, creating jobs and vitality in a remote area but it is shocking that Mr Redford would deny others similar opportunities to make a profit and create jobs.”

The film’s co-director Phelim McAleer said the film was highlighting the double standards of so many celebrities and environmentalists. “This is just another example of environmental elites telling the rest of us how and where we must live and what we are not allowed to do, but thinking that those rules don’t apply to themselves. Robert Redford has shown himself to be a hypocrite – plain and simple,” said McAleer.

The film – released on YouTube – also shows how Redford has campaigned against “dirty fuels” and wants to end the use of oil whilst promoting flying by doing lucrative voice overs for a series of United Airlines commercials.

Actor and environmentalist Robert Redford has stepped out against the controversial Angwin eco-village, announcing that he will join the local group Save Rural Angwin.


An eight-year resident of the Napa Valley, Redford will serve on SRA’s 13-member Advisory Council, leading the group in its efforts to defeat the eco-village proposal.

“I believe that the citizens of Napa Valley, from American Canyon to Calistoga, care about preserving our beautiful agricultural and rural heritage,” Redford said in a prepared statement. “That is why I am happy to join the Advisory Council of Save Rural Angwin in its efforts to preserve this naturally carved land-basin from development.”

Watch the whole thing.

H/T Instapundit

I'm Serial

It seems that with record low temps and near record snow fall, that not nearly as many people are taking Climate Change very seriously any more....even Al Gore is down in the dumps,



But serially, it seems that Climate Change apathy has descended upon the world.  James Delingpole of the UK's Guardian notes. that, 

Bob Ward is sad. Very, very sad. “Why won’t anyone listen to us any more?” he wails at the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.


One or two helpful commenters have tried to explain the reason. But unfortunately, as Richard North has noted, at Komment Macht Frei freedom of speech is not encouraged. See how many of their comments have been deleted.

At Watt's Up With That, Ryan Maue comments on NASA GISS' press release on this subject,

Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment. According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). They have to admit an inconvenient truth:

One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

Confusion?

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Wait a minute, wait a minute: a remarkably inactive sun …

“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.

Subtle differences? Extraordinary agreement?

Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto. You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.

In my humble opinion, I think that MSM's reporting of "climate change" is basically bullshit.  It's merely another way for the left to gain control of national/global economies in order to "share the wealth".  Socialism/Communism under another guise.  If you look at the reporting of this over the past 120 or so years, MSM (of the time) has been behind the curve by 10-15 years.  100 years ago, it was about the coming Ice Age.

But when one looks back at the history of climate reporting, you find a remarkably consistent and recurring theme. The global temperature has cycled from cold to warm to cold to warm again over the last 120 years. The media cycles of impending climatic doom mirror the climate cycles themselves, but with a roughly ten- to fifteen-year lag. It seems whenever the world warms, the volume of global warming stories increases to match the trend. Conversely, when the climate cools the major media outlets pull on their long johns and warn us of the next ice age. However, it takes many years for the media to catch up to what the climate is actually doing.


On February 24, 1895, the New York Times reported: “Geologists think the world may be frozen up again.” The story wondered “whether recent and long continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period.”

In 1912, shortly after the sinking of the Titanic by an iceberg, the New York Times reported on a professor from a Cornell University: “Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching ice age.” On the very same day, the Los Angles Times reported: “Fifth ice age is on the way. … Human race will have to fight for its existence against the cold.”

This, I think, is mainly because "journalists" really have no clue of the science and statistics behind it all.  Most journalists are scientifically illiterate and just haven't a clue on how to collate the data.  For the past 150 million years or so, the planet has undergone long periods of glaciation, interspersed with warm periods.  The Midieval Warm period was so warm, the English were growing wine grapes in central England.  If the era we currently live in now is that warm, why aren't there vinyards all over northern Europe?  It's because it's just not warm enough...I expect in a decade or so...as the planet again cools a bit...as it has been doing since 1998 (at least according to "hide the decline" data) the media will again be trumpeting headlines and stories like this from the 1970's:

On November 15, 1969, Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr.: “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations. … If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the Earth could be plunged into an ice age.” On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported: “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age. … Better get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come.” Fortune reported in February 1974: “It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.” (Sound familiar?) On June 24, Time wrote: “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Newsweek said on April 28, 1975: “The Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. … [Meteorologists were] Almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

While I'm not a scientist, I am reasonably intelligent, and can understand complex concepts, I can read the data that's coming out of NASA and UEA...and see that basically the science is bullshit.  The world, as we know it through recorded history, has undergone periods of warming and cooling...and will continue to do so for as long as the planet exists.

Cool It: Anti-Global Warming Documentary

Here's the trailer for a new anti-global warming documentary.



The film is by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor. 

So sensible are Lomborg’s ideas for cooling the planet without destroying our economic competitiveness that even the Los Angeles Times dubbed it “enlightening,brain-nourishing stuff.”

Al Gore Confronted By Hostile Audience In Tampa

Al Gore was confronted by an angry and audience in Tampa, FL who contested his beliefs on "global warming."

ClimateGate: Lord Christopher Monckton

Quote of the Day

Yesterday the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration announced the formation of Climate Service office. This office will provide information to Congress on climate change.

“More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,”

From the comments

8:18 pm February 8, 2010
Rachel wrote:
Quote: “But, says NOAA spokesman Justin Kenney, they’re happy to have a chance to educate people about the difference between the climate and the weather.”True. Weather is observable, measureable, and even predictable. Climate change is [only] “evidenced” only by manipulated data.

The press conference was done telephonically due to the blizzard this past weekend.

Global Warming: Policy Driven Deception

Here is the executive summary from The Science & Public Policy Institute (for those too lazy to "read the whole thing"-lovely turn of phrase, Glenn).

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant "global warming" in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.

5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century "global warming".

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC "chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations."

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

In a nutshell, AGW is a hoax of epic proportions. After all the billions and billions of dollars spent on "proving" the science, those behind it, including Al Gore should be prosecuted and have all of the assets seized to reimburse the people for this hoax.

The Genius of Robert Gibbs

The Genius of Robert Gibbs [Mark Steyn]

The science settles on the White House Press Secretary:

Our weather patterns have been affected by change in our climate.

And we can't have that, can we?

Environmentalism is Big Government on crack: If only we regulate the very heavens, we can reduce costs, eliminate inequalities in weather patterns, provide access to affordable reliable climate for all, and make pre-existing conditions a thing of the past.

ClimateChange: Most Carbon Emitted Is Absorbed By Oceans

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

In other words, in the past 160 years, the real rate of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't risen very much...

ClimateGate, There IS Substantial Evidence Of AGW, NOT!

A great sypopsys of the "denier" arguments...found in volokhconspiracy.com about halfway down.

schizuki says:

Rather than make an open and honest argument that, despite persistent uncertainties, there is substantial theoretical and empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to a gradual warming

Really? Where? Because all of the “evidence” I’ve seen has been suspect. Do you have a link to any of this “substantial theoretical and empirical evidence”?

The argument always goes like this:

“Sure, the Hockey Stick was shown to be fraudulent, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, James Hansen’s NASA climate data was shown to be corrupt, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, temperature tracking stations were shown to have had air-conditioning exhausts installed right next to them, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, East Anglia CRU is the most influential player in Global Warming research and policy formulation, and has been exposed as a cabal of data-cookers and debate-squelchers, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, he hit me a few times, but he’s really a sweet guy when he’s not drinking.”

Quote

Lord Monckton Confronts "Warmist" At Copenhagen

Global Warming: Take A Longer View

If you take a much longer view of the "global warming" picture, than just the past thousand years you'll get a vastly different picture. Looking at ice cores from the interiors of both Greenland and the Antarctic you can develop a far more accurate picture of what first the Medieval Warming Period was like. Here's an ice core temperature graph that goes back to the late Medieval period and shows that presently there is is indeed a disturbing warming trend:



But if you go back to a point of twelve hundred years, that upward trend isn't so threatening. This is the point at which the Vikings began to settle Greenland...um that could be because it was GREEN? Lots of room to farm, nice place to live? Also, starting around a thousand years or so ago, people in England were growing wine grapes, that's something that's not possible now (it's too cold) because the "climate changed" during the Little Ice Age.



On the other hand, if you go back further, say four thousand years, then the trend is in fact...not much of a problem. In fact historically, at the very stirrings of civilization some five or so thousand years ago, it was much warmer than it is now. Agriculture flourishes in warmer climate...than it does in colder times. Hence the serious reduction in population during the Dark Ages (that preceded the MWP) as well as the Little Ice Age.



But...take the picture back another eight thousand years, to roughly twelve thousand years before present era to look at the Holocene era in it's entirety, you realize that we are still in the Little Ice Age...and perhaps are only just now beginning to emerge from a 500 (or so) year period of global cooling.



But by looking at an ice core from Vostock, Antarctica which goes back...several hundred thousand year, it appears that periods of extensive glaciation are much more normal than the 10-12,000 year periods of warming...



Indeed, the Antarctic ice cores show that the periods of inter glaciation are in fact the anomaly in global climate and that we have had a longer than normal period outside of ice age temperatures. Perhaps the climatologist were actually right in the 1970's when they were predicting that we are actually entering a period of "pre ice age"...and the temperatures may in fact be trending downwards...for the next 90,000 years? Something to think about, especially as our political masters seem hell-bent on economic suicide in Copenhagen.

Cap & Trade: Europe Police Report Massive Fraud

Of course with our superior science, and vastly more efficient government, this could NEVER happen here

The Hague, 09 December 2009

Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer

The Hague - The Netherlands.

The European Union (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS) has been the victim of fraudulent traders in the past 18 months. This resulted in losses of approximately 5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.

Indications of suspicious trading activities were noted in late 2008, when several market platforms saw an unprecedented increase in the trade volume of European Unit Allowances (EUAs). Market volume peaked in May 2009, with several hundred million EUAs traded in e.g. in France and Denmark. At that time the market price of 1 EUA, which equals 1 ton of carbon dioxide, was around EUR 12,5.

As an immediate measure to prevent further losses France, the Netherlands, the UK and most recently Spain, have all changed their taxation rules on these transactions. After these measures were taken, the market volume in the aforementioned countries dropped by up to 90 percent.

With the support of Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom Europol has set up a specific project to collect and analyse information in order to identify and disrupt the organised criminal structures behind these fraud schemes. There are reasons to believe that fraudsters might soon migrate towards the gas and electricity branches of the energy sector.

Mr. Wainwright, Director of Europol, says "These criminal activities endanger the credibility of the European Union Emission Trading System and lead to the loss of significant tax revenue for governments. Europol is using its expertise and information capabilities to help target the organised crime groups involved". Europol has therefore offered its support to the European Commission - DG Environment to safeguard the integrity of the Community Independent Transaction Log."

Background information

Missing trader intra-community fraud (MTIC) is the theft of Value Added Tax (VAT) from a government by organised crime groups who exploit the way VAT is treated within the member states of the EU.

The EU has the objective of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, to reduce climate change and meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Each MS has granted its emitting facilities a certain amount of emission rights by means of a National Allocation Plan. These emission rights can be traded like any other commodity on the market. The transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances is a taxable supply of services.

In Europe there are 6 trading platforms: European Climate Exchange (London, UK), Nordic Power Exchange (Oslo, Norway), European Energy Exchange (Leipzig, Germany), Energy Exchange Austria (Graz, Austria), Climex (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and BlueNext (Paris, France) and various other market platforms such as SENDECO2, Italian Power Exchange GME and most recently Greenmarket, set up by Deutsche Bank at the Munich exchange. More than 2 billion EUAs have been allocated to 12.000 emitting facilities in the 27 MS. The EU carbon market is estimated to be worth about €90 billion a year!

The Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was created as a cap-and-trade system for transactions of European Unit Allowances. Each transfer of EUAs is recorded in a national registry before it is centrally stored in the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL) at the EU Commission.

Carbon credit fraud is a variation on the VAT carousel fraud. The attached graphic shows how carbon credit carousel fraud works.

Cap & Trade = Economic Suicide

If the intelligentsia of the West desires economic suicide, let them move to equatorial Africa and live close to the land. By implementing voluntary limitations to "carbon output" while the new economic power houses of Asia (India, Chine, Taiwan, Korea) continue their unfettered growth will mean the end of your life as you know it. You'll suffer brown outs, where electricity will be limited to certain times of day. You will be limited in where you can work, and how far from home you can travel, what kinds of vehicles the government will permit you to own...the list goes on and on. This is what Copenhagen really means.

For many of them the new carbon regime means a gradual decline in living standards. Huge increases in energy costs, taxes and a spate of regulatory mandates will restrict their access to everything from single-family housing and personal mobility to employment in carbon-intensive industries like construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agriculture.

You can get a glimpse of this future in high-unemployment California. Here a burgeoning regulatory regime tied to global warming threatens to turn the state into a total "no go" economic development zone. Not only do companies have to deal with high taxes, cascading energy prices and regulations, they now face audits of their impact on global warming. Far easier to move your project to Texas--or if necessary, China.

The notion that the hoi polloi must be sacrificed to save the earth is not a new one. Paul Ehrlich, who was the mentor of President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, laid out the defining logic in his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb. In this influential work, Ehrlich predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and "an age of scarcity" in key metals by the mid-1980s. Similar views were echoed by a 1972 "Limits to Growth" report issued by the Club of Rome, a global confab that enjoyed a cache similar to that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Read the whole article! More importantly it's becoming clearer that the "settled science" that AGW is based upon is...if not fraudulent, then manipulated in order to reach a preconceived political agenda and that is an end to Western affluence.

Physicists Ask American Physical Society To Recind Global Warming Statement

Here is the request in full, all emphasis is mine:

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

ClimateGate: A Brief Explaination

Charles Martin on Pajamasmedia.com has an excellent point by point run down of why this issue is so disturbing. In brief, here are the three main points:

The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:

* to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;

*to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;

*to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.

It is the last point that the various researchers have been under investigation for in both the US and the UK...as this is crime and is punishable as such. Follow the links and read the whole thing!

CRU's Andrew Watson Insults Colleague On BBC

Professor Watson gets quite agitated in this exchange.

Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia, the University at the center of the Climategate controversy, has come to the defense of his colleagues this week and is claiming that the whole email and data release is much ado about nothing.

But other scientists disagree. One of Watson’s colleagues at the University of East Anglia, Professor Mike Hulme, declared Climategate reveals climate science had become ‘too partisan, too centralized.” Hulme, a climate scientist who was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, does not mince words on the magnitude of the scandal.

Hulme has even suggested that the UN IPCC has run its course. ”

“It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures,” Hulme wrote on November 27, 2009.

“It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the [UN] I.P.C.C. has run its course. “The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” Hulme explained.

What To Do About "Global Warming"?

If you're really serious? A recent study has been released showing that there are deposits of natural gas within the continental US that, if properly exploited would last at least 100 years (that's if we built gas-fired eletrical generating plants to replace ALL of the coal-fired plant existant today). Then there's the problem of nuclear power..."greens" (in the persona of Greenpeace) have been opposing nuclear power for more than 30 years. So much so that they have stifled the building of new plants within this country since the 1980's through an overly complicated and expensive regulatory process.

One of the founders of Greenpeace-Dr Patrick Moore--on the other hand, has come to the conclusion that this policy has been, shall we say misguided. His take has been that by refusing to exploit our reserves of uranium and plutonium we have made a huge mistake that has force us to build several hundred coal-fired power plants. The French and the Japanese have taken the initiative to use nuclear power plants to produce 75% of their electrical power generation. We have a lot of ground to make up. We have enough raw materials to last at least 1000 years...WITHOUT ADDING ANY CO2!

I'm only the son of a "rocket scientist" but this is one of those things that begs the question: Why are we not exploiting this NOW? really why?