Articles Tagged "Letters@ClimateRealists.Com"

Well worth the listen...especially because it's absolutely true !!

John Coleman on Global Warming

Let me add a little to what John has said in this video...it's real important.

First I want to emphasize that every known interglacial is accompanied by a naturally occurring, but delayed, spike in CO2. And that these CO2 spikes are in large part responsible for, and fundamentally required for, the spikes in bio-diversity that come with each interglacial (great times for life on Earth...all life on Earth). But here is where it gets a little tricky. When we estimate the total manmade output of CO2, and compare that to the observed increases in atmospheric CO2, we can only account for approximately half of what we measure we are emitting.

Some have interpreted that this means that we are responsible for 100% of the observed increase. In fact the interpretation is even much more dire. Mother Nature is being forced to “choke-down” half of our emission, through various absorption processes, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere, to account for the observed increase. Surely then, we are responsible for 100% of the observed increase – and then some. And we are dangerously tampering with a finely balanced system.

I was originally a believer in Global Warming until two years ago when I started to research the subject in more detail whereupon I discovered the same tactics used against plasma physicists - carefully ignoral, ad hom attacks, denial of publication, refusal to accept observational scientific evidence - are the same tactics used in the climate debate.

After reading many of the so called global warming websites and blogs the language was always the same " science settled, NASA agrees, general consensus, 1000's of scientists can't be wrong.

I instantly smelled something decomposing.

So I checked the skeptic's camp and found Piers and many others who talked only of the science, real world evidence, first principle physics and just plain common sense.

Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:

America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030 is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%.

Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.

3.3% x 15.8% x 42% = .22% of total world carbon emissions in 2030, and

15.8% x 42% = 6.64% of all human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels.

Hello, ClimateRealists.com:

The following is an outline for my video, the goal of which is to give viewers a visual understanding of the numbers used to describe trace gas concentrations.

I think providing this kind of help is necessary because most people simply do not understand the numbers. No matter how often and how well we provide the correct numbers, most people don’t “get the picture,” because they aren’t familiar with parts per million. They are familiar with percent, and we should extend that familiarity to parts per million. The hockey stick graph was used to get a false message across effectively; it was called “visually arresting” and “iconic.” We should have a visually compelling video that provides an immediate understanding of the surprisingly small contribution of carbon dioxide from human activity.

If people could see visual representations of the tiny concentrations, I think the chances are good that they would also see the absurdity of the claims of impending climate disaster from only 12-15 parts per million of carbon dioxide from human activity.

Elisa Pardo

The Editor
Climate Realists

Dear Editor

We must expose “CO2 driven global warming” as pseudo science unless verified, and policies based on this belief will ruin us all.

This belief is not supported by existing data, and my submission is an attempt to demonstrate that.

Yours sincerely

Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD
Engineer

Click to download PDF file and read FULL report by Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD

Introduction

In our zeal to do something about global warming, we need to avoid solutions based on false assumptions. Mistakes made now will be impossible to correct later. Of particular concern is our approach to balancing CO2 reduction versus the realities of fossil fuel depletion.

Media discussion of global warming seldom makes any connection between the ecology of temperature change and pending fuel shortages. Our political leaders appear reluctant to discuss fossil fuel depletion and global warming in the same conversation. Although both Democrats and Republicans know about the consequences of fossil fuel depletion, critical questions about depletion are – for the most part – taboo.

All this denial raises a critical question. How can we expect our political establishment to make intelligent decisions about the price, availability and use of our energy resources if they refuse to acknowledge half the data? For me, global warming and fossil fuel depletion are the evil twins. We must deal with both of them at the same time. Else we risk making tragic policy mistakes

Please download PDF file to read FULL article

Dear ClimateRealists.Com

I came across this page at the Hadley Site...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/

and I wrote them this letter:

Letter to HADley

Why have you made false and misleading statements in you section “Climate change toolkit”

On your page "Climate change - Fact 2"?

Have you read about the grass-roots polls to ban dihydrogen monoxide (youtube search it for video - it’s hilarious). It’s a substance used in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. People are just afraid of anything they do not understand. It’s just that simple. And people simply don’t understand CO2. It’s a vital component to the entire biosphere of the planet without which Earth’s entire life-cycle would collapse. But we are coached to think it’s a kind of poison.

I’ve got a good idea. For those of us who have a grip on common-sense, let’s think of CO2 as really being C(O2). Then let’s always refer to it as Vitamin C(O2); pronounced Vitamin C..(O2), with a little delay. That should help fix the perception. And the irony is that this would be an entirely fair characterization of what the molecule really is. After all, in commercial greenhouses (the real ones, not the fabled one that surrounds the entire Earth) the owner/operators regularly spike the local internal greenhouse atmosphere with Vitamin C(O2) in order to stimulate growth (to ~1000ppm or so). Not because of lore-or-myth but rather because it really does stimulate growth and they directly profit from it. The agricultural research community has done a great deal of study that supports the assertion that a fair portion of the rising global agricultural yield (maybe 15% or more) is directly attributable to the currently, and almost entirely naturally (99.5%), elevated level of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2).

Please download PDF file to read FULL essay from Ronald D. Voisin

by Joseph A Olson, author is a Registered Engineer involved in construction, who has a lifelong commitment to functional mass transit and to vast improvements in auto efficiency and safety, and is also opposed to political manipulation thru FALSE SCIENCE.

Surface air, trapped on the top of snow packs in Antarctica and Greenland, are the source of 100,000 year old ice cores which are analysised for variations in the ratios of gases and ash in the air at the time the snow was deposited. This bring up a series of questions. First of all, if earth’s climate had been stable for a billion years then why aren’t the ice packs of these two isolated regions a billion years thick ?

What geologic event took place 100,000 years ago to wipe out the previous snow mass ? From measurements of the air and the thickness of the layers of these ice cores, the Hoaxers are able to divine a number of additional facts. First is that the thickness of these layers gives definite evidence of the entire globes temperature at that time of deposition.

This is one of many recent Letters@ClimateRealists.Com sent in to us for display. Some of the letters have a similar theme, in that many people have only just started to see the skeptics side of the argument....take time out to read this, it has a lot to say about the public feeling, concerning the long journey Climate Realists have had, in order to make their point known. As far as this person is concerned our message is getting there!

Dear fellow realists,

I started studying the accusations, when the 2nd year in a row proved to be cold.. I am not a scientist by profession, but I have " high-up- there" children. Logic and keen interest help.. Anyway on my first night at the Internet I could not believe my eyes. I stayed up till 2 o'clock watching the movies and reading. Weeks and weeks of learning. Everyday I found more proof and interesting things, like this opportunity to write to you.