The Realists Take on Climate Change

Whenever there is a mention of ice melting the "Man Made Climate Change" side is put forward as if the entire world is under some sort of meltdown. The media have done there best in recent days to have shown the story of the so called "North Pole" meltdown.

The original person who reported this story has gone on to say that he is surprised to say the least concerning the reaction that has been made in the media in the comment section of RealClimate: -

#6 Mark C. Serreze Says: 27 June 2008 at 3:31 PM
Gavin: I hope that I will not be pilloried by the community for being a part of this story. From what I can gather, it started with a piece in “National Geographic Online”, moved to a piece in “The Independent”, another piece on CNN, and then quickly grew out of all reasonable proportion. A positive feedback process. I’ll be the first to agree that losing the ice at the north pole this summer would be purely symbolic, but symbolism can be pretty darned powerful.

We will have to agree with him, the North Pole melt down is a very powerful symbol and we will be following this story.

Updated below from The American Thinker - Arctic ice melt may be due to undersea volcanoes

In WhatsUpWithThat we have news of the current state of play with Solar Cycle 24.

Its all quiet on the solar front. Too quiet. It has now been almost 2 and a half months since the last counted cycle 24 sunspot has been seen on April 13th, 2008. There was a tiny cycle 24 ”sunspeck” that appeared briefly on May 13th, but according to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard, that one never was assigned a number and did not “count”. It is just barely discernable on this large image from that day.

NASA’s David Hathaway updated his solar cycle prediction page on June 4th. The start of cycle 24 keeps getting pushed forward while the ramp up line starts to look steeper into 2009.

The National Post by Ronald Nurwisah had this to say concerning a tour from Lawrence Solomon.

On a tour earlier this week for his new book on global warming, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon made a presentation at the Petroleum Club in Calgary. His remarks, adapted, appear below.

I’m surprised to see so many of you here today. I thought you might be at trial, for your global warming crimes.

James Hansen — he’s one of the leaders in the climate change movement in the U.S. — wants you in court. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing,” he stated yesterday. “...they should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Come to think of it, David Suzuki also sees those who abet CO2 emissions as criminals.

And you know what, I bet some of you see yourselves as criminals — or something close to it — because there’s something in human nature that makes us feel guilty, even for crimes we didn’t commit, let alone for non-crimes. And I bet some of your friends and associates might look at you sideways. And your children may be teased and made to feel guilty about what their dad does for a living.

The Daily Mail by David Derbyshire had a this to say about wind farms and the cost of going green.

Plans to cover swathes of the countryside with wind farms will cost every family at least £260 a year in higher fuel bills, it emerged yesterday.

The Government said the sacrifice was needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet EU targets for green energy.

Under £100billion plans unveiled by Gordon Brown, at least 4,000 wind turbines will go up in some of the UK's most beautiful scenery, while another 3,000 will be built at sea.

The American Chronicle by Victoria Hardy has come up trumps with a recent review concerning CO2 Sceptic issues.

I grow frustrated when things don´t make sense to me, but sometimes I grow even more frustrated when they do. This world is filled with deception, packaged as truth and drummed into our brains repeatedly until we accept the new knowledge. We have learned through media programming that aspartame is healthy, mercury in vaccines is safe, sunlight is bad and humans cause global warming. And with each one of these ideas that the media sells us, someone grows very rich, at our expense.

Al Gore has achieved a lot of accolades and wealth from his movie "An Inconvenient Truth", not only did he win the Nobel Peace Prize, but his personal wealth increased by millions. As Mr. Gore travels the country speaking passionately on the harm we humans are doing to this earth, his yearly light bill in his private residence was enough to power 232 average households for a month. Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research believes Mr. Gore is "exploiting the public´s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile." Acquiring records from the Nashville Electric Service, it was discovered that Mr. Gore uses 17,768 kWh per month, whereas the average American household uses 11,040 kWh in an entire year. Tennessee Policy

From the New York Times by JAMES KERIAN we have a first class article concerning a logical approach to the reporting of "unproven" science.

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science

From Paul Biggs

Hi All,

I couldn't go to Fred's presentation in London, so I asked a retired friend to go and report back - he has a keen interest in climate realism, and he wrote the report on climate change for Conservative Way Forward:

Yesterday (25 June) I attended a lunchtime seminar in Westminster, organised by the Centre for Policy Studies, on climate change and the case against CO2 as the driver of global temperatures. Chaired by Nigel Lawson, there were several other peers in attendance, and more Ph.Ds and professors than you could shake a stick at.

The speaker was Dr Fred Singer, the 84-year-old American climate scientist and author of 'Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years' and one of the founders of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), set up to examine all the evidence on the subject, including that ignored by the politicised IPCC.

The London seminar was the last in a series that Dr Singer had held around Europe, where he had also had a meeting with the EU Environment Commissioner. Apparently, after listening to Dr Singer's views, the commissioner replied that they were very interesting but he would have to seek the views of scientists!

Dr Singer gave a presentation on the NIPCC paper 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate', of which he was the editor. He showed that the most damning evidence against man-made climate change was the 'fingerprint' method of comparing what the climate models predict should be happening to atmospheric temperatures and what measurements show actually is happening - and they are totally different.

From David Ball

I am the eldest son of Dr. Tim Ball. I have been involved with this "debate" my entire life. I cannot even watch television any longer due to the preponderance of misinformation being blasted at us by the media. My father studied the weather records form Churchill and YorkFactory (Hudson's Bay) from 1605 through to 1951.

It is an amazing record of weather and hardship. Incredible science being done even then. The Hudson's Bay company was doing global experiments in the late 1700's. One in particular was to map the transit of Venus and involved James Cook, Mason and Dixon, and the men stationed on Hudson's Bay. They kept impeccable records, rivaling weather stations today!!

My point is that no one is listening to the real scientist on this subject. More and more evidence is coming to light daily to support the solar driver theory. The climate models are a joke. To listen to James Hansen talk, I cannot help but think of the psychological term "projecting". When he says that all deniers and oil execs should be jailed, is part of him deep down recognizing his deceptions and falsification of data.

Never mind the oodles of money he and Gore are making on the
fraudulent "Carbon Offset Credits".

I take a great deal of comfort knowing the evidence that is coming in has got the pro-AGWer's on the run. Who are the deniers now???

Keep up your very important work. We cannot be discouraged.
Even the Vatican eventually apologized to Galileo, although it took 400 years, .............David Ball

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first six articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s seventh and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he threads together all of the main articles to achieve a credible rival to "The Green House Effect". The following work titled "The Hot Water Bottle Effect" considers that the "Green House Effect" was flawed and that his own theory will help people understand how the Earth's climate works in conjunction with The Sun.

THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT - by Stephen Wilde

Preface

This article attempts to consider the combined effect of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and oceanic oscillations. As far as I know no one has previously attempted to describe both phenomena as part of a single global temperature control system. It was prompted by an answer I gave to a meteorologist about my article entitled “The Death Blow to AGW”. That meteorologist had difficulty understanding how a period of steady solar irradiance could nevertheless heat up the Earth. My reply was as follows:

"An electric bar fire with a constant level of output in a room will cumulatively raise the room temperature for as long as the heat flowing from the fire exceeds the heat outflow from the room. Thus a net warming effect from the sun, even if it is in the form of a steady flow of energy from the sun over a few decades will cumulatively warm the Earth until the radiation of heat from the Earth rises to match the excess heat being received. As a result of oceanic time lags that could take some time. There is the mechanism.”

That exchange led to this article via my attempt to find a more accurate analogy than that of the greenhouse effect. I soon realised that the oceans were more significant than the atmosphere since they hold solar heat in greater quantity and for much longer than the atmosphere. My conclusion was that we owe our existence not to an atmospheric greenhouse or blanket but instead to an oceanic hot water bottle. It is what I hope will become widely known as The Hot Water Bottle Effect (THWBE) in place of The Greenhouse Effect.

This could well be the shape of things to come, an advertising campaign to reduce CO2 back to the level it was in the 1980's!

Those of you who read our articles may remember that we regard the practice of meddling to offset the effects of the Sun is referred to as 'Climate Alchemy'. The Al Gore and the IPCC media and publicity machine that puts fear and anxiety into people concerning "Man Made Climate Change", are nothing more then CLIMATE ALCHEMISTS when it come to promoting the dangers of increased CO2.

This obsession with CO2 reduction mirrors that of the Alchemists, in that they wish to believe that the properties of CO2 can make changes to our climate in the same way Alchemists believed they could turn Coal into Gold.

Here then is an article from Reuters for a proposed advertising campaign to reduce the level of CO2 on the basis that it will stop the world becoming hotter! In case your not aware of the scientific fact concerning CO2, CO2 does NOT drive world temperatures! IT'S THE SUN!

OSLO: The world should cut the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to below that of 20 years ago, more deeply than most government plans, to avoid the worst of climate change, a group of 150 advocates said on Monday.

"We've gone too far -- in a dangerous direction," scientists, politicians, business leaders and others said in full-page advertisements in the Financial Times, the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and two Swedish dailies .

They said that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by burning fossil fuels, should be cut to below 350 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere, well below current levels of 385 ppm.