Articles Tagged "Letter"

- Met Office & BBC accused of litany of lies on long range forecasting & climate change
- Reason for Met Office failed forecasts is fraudulaent (Climategate) data
- Collective manslaugter charges against University of East Anglia, Met Office and BBC called for.

7th Jan 2010

Gavin,

Further to Newsnight tonight where the Met Office and BBC so called expert lied about the reality of long-range forecasting; and your questioning was woefully inadequate and ignorant - despite efforts.

You should know that the MET OFFICE & BBC are in denial on the reality of long range forecasting and on the falsity of so-called man-made Climate Change.

The science behind the theory that CO2 is driving so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a sham. It cannot be scientifically proven.

Let us pretend that the UN's central estimate of equilibrium "global warming" caused by CO2, allowing for all temperature feedbacks, is correct. In that case, temperature change, in Celsius degrees, is equal to 4.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.

First, check that this equation is correct by working out how much warming would occur if we doubled CO2 concentration. The warming would be 4.7 ln 2 = 3.26 Celsius degrees, exactly the central estimate given by the UN's climate panel in its 2007 assessment report.

For the past 10 years, according to the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, global atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen at just two parts per million by volume per year, reaching 388 ppmv this year.

What do you do when "global warming" turns into global cooling? How does a "scientist" handle data that does not support his theory? What's a "scientist" to do when he cannot prove man-made global warming after millions of dollars and many years trying? What do you do when 31,000 real scientists completely refute your contention of man-made global warming? What happens when your computer-generated models turn out to be 180 degrees out of synch?

If you are a global warming "scientist," you do several things: Hide all conflicting data, erase or destroy data that doesn't support your agenda, suppress any and all dissent from skeptics, tell everyone "the argument is over," change your vocabulary from "global warming" to "climate change" and try your best not to let the real data come out.

Sadly, this is exactly what has happened in the persistent and continuing hoax called man-made global warming. In a series of leaked, and damning e-mails, the truth about the "scientists" who push this agenda has finally been made public.

What has become astonishing in the past few days since the Climategate scandal broke is the struggle for damage control by the science pundits for the "establishment" view that humans cause global warming. Whether it is Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times, George Monbiot of the Guardian or Tom Yulsman of the Center for Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado, each is incapable of grasping the possibility that there might actually be a question about climate science here.

Their minds are closed to the possibility that man-made CO2 might not be causing climate change. They assume automatically that the "global warming deniers" are wicked types bought off by big pollution, and so they write pieces calling for greater openness. They say they want to refute their opponents' claims by using scientific data because they firmly believe that, of course, they will be proved right.

In fact, they already have announced most confidently that the entire scandal will blow over before long. That's wonderful damage control.

OK, Dennis Jones, let me put it to you in simple terms. I'm not a scientist, either, and I didn't even read Butch Mazzuca's column. All I had to do was to read yours and instantly disagree with you. It's easy to regurgitate what the media spits out of the television regarding global warming, but the real story is far different.

This has all been a set up for a global carbon tax and you will be paying it very soon. Obama will go to Copenhagen, Denmark, next month and sign the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. It's a 200-page document that will bind the U.S. and all industrialized countries to pay massive financial penalties for our carbon footprint.

Those paying the penalties will be the citizens. Al Gore has also had a long-term agenda with this tax in mind and he's been the main man to sell this tale of “man-made global warming” to the people of Earth. This is fact. The documents are all over the Internet and you can pull them straight off government Web sites if you disagree.

The bloom is finally coming off the global warming rose. A NASA study of satellite temperature data over the last decade has revealed that global temperatures stopped rising in 1998 and have declined since then. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has grudgingly acknowledged that the temperature has dropped in spite of increasing CO2 production.

This 10-year cooling trend can't be happening, according to the computer climate models that predict warmer temperatures as CO2 increases. When the computer climate predictions don't match what we are actually observing, obviously there is something wrong with the climate models. So when Al Gore says "The science is settled, the debate is over," he is full of baloney. The science clearly is not settled, and simply claiming that the debate is over is a debating tactic designed to avoid debate.

It is with much amusement that I watch the global warmers desperately trying to convince the public that this unforeseen cooling trend, which may last for 10 or 20 years more, is really just a symptom of global warming.

Dear Archbishop Nichols

Last Friday the airwaves hummed to the news that you, together with your counterparts from other “faith communities” in the country, had collectively lobbied Ed Miliband MP in connection with the forthcoming conference in Copenhagen dedicated to so-called climate change. The BBC for one reported that you had declared it to be “a moral issue”. I agree. So much so, in fact, that I venture to proffer the suggestion that the ethical underpinning of the cause to which you have now committed the weight of your office warrants the closest possible scrutiny.

But where to begin? Well, as the beauteous and benign white Witch of the North said to Dorothy, “It’s usually best to start at the beginning”. Good advice! So then, what are we being asked to believe by the proselytisers of anthropogenic global warming, curiously morphed to “climate change”- any idea why? No? Just ask and I’ll deliver chapter and verse from none other than the august Tyndall Centre no less (en passant, Working Paper No. 58). But, anyway, in the sort of transcendental terminology favoured by you and others of a theocratic persuasion, we are being asked to accept that, within the atmosphere, a trace carbon compound, but one which happens also to have been ordained by God to be the fundamental building block of life itself, nevertheless contains within it the seeds of Armageddon.

Carbon dioxide today commands a global free market trade value of some $126m per annum with an estimated future value of some 10 trillion dollars, all this money for an odourless, invisible naturally occurring non-polluting gas and the western world between its self is set to trade over 5.9 billion metric tons of HOT AIR for a lack of a better word in 2009, absurd isn't it?

Over the past 10 years, after investing over $5bn in intensive scientific research, what did the world actually get for its money; it got absolutely nothing, there's still no empirical data and no conclusive measurable result and NONE of this billions went into research to determine whether climate change was actually a natural event driven by climate itself! So what it did buy? Strangely enough a lot of dummies who can't follow or even understand the science but believe in it blindly via a well orchestrated visual media machine that doesn't require or demand thought, this clearly comes to the fore in a recent News24 voting booth which saw 78% of viewers seeing global warming as a real imminent threat.

The sad story about this debate is when realists even dare suggest there is no reason for panic, it is not greeted with "thank goodness tell me more" or even sighs of relief or a wipe of the brow, it is instantly and aggressively greeted with antagonism, insult and verbal abuse, it begs the question why?

This article uses the word "Naysayers" to describe people who believe in AGW.

There are those who claim that human beings are causing Global Warming. They base this on self-perpetuated non-objective data that ignores the most obvious fact: Global Temperatures have risen/fallen many times before. Global Warming and cooling are as natural as the rising and falling tides.

They are standing at a point in time that has happened before, and claiming that for the first time, the changes that are expected, are due to a new condition.

The last time the globe warmed this much, humans were virtually non-existent, and yet the globe warmed 3c more than it is today.

OK, I’ll start right off by admitting that I am a “Climate Change” Denier, Naysayer, Skeptic, Cynic, Disbeliever, Doubter, Doubting Thomas, Flat Earther, and any other phrases that you might find in your Thesaurus. There, I admit it. Do I feel guilty about the future of the planet? No, not in the least.

Why do I reach this decision?

Because, as an engineer I have extensive training on the actual limits placed on human activities by the LAWS OF PHYSICS. For more than a quarter of a century I have tried to design things that violate the LAWS OF PHYSICS. I am ashamed to admit that I HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY OF THEM YET. As an engineer I am in the FRONT LINES fighting the LAWS OF PHYSICS every day. So far the LAWS OF PHYSICS are winning, 99-0.