Articles Tagged "Letter"

After a brief respite to digest the “climategate” scandal and the IPCC's negligent acceptance of fraudulent claims about melting Himalayan glaciers, the SDN echo chamber of environmental propaganda has resumed in full form with the Peters-deBuys article of July 17. Such activists are trumpeting the recent spring increase of 0.1 C in average temperature while they completely ignored the previous decade decrease of 0.25 C. The environmental propagandists are now back on message with their talking points in preparation for the Senate's consideration of an energy bill. The article is right about one thing: namely, that you should look at the data yourself; but not the eco-massaged data they recommend but rather the raw data as summarized in www.climate4you then click on May 2010.

The data show nothing particularly dramatic for the last several decades: temperatures, polar ice coverage, and sea level fluctuations that are all well within the range of normal variability. For more details, see my recent Café Scientifique talk on www.youtube.com and enter “climategate” and “hertzberg” in the search box. The data show that average Earth temperatures do not correlate with the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that neither of those quantities correlate in any way with the human emission of CO2 by fossil fuel combustion. The entire theory that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere can reradiate energy back to the Earth and thus cause more heating, has been proven to violate the laws of thermodynamics, and thus to be completely devoid of physical reality. Acceptance of that theory by some journals, scientific organizations, and government agencies both national and international, represents scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.

I just want to let the two UCLA professors know, in case they've been sequestered in academia, that the "science" of climate change is so unsettled at this point that the average person trying to make up his mind on the topic should trust no one that claims to have all the answers ["Reader Rebuttal: Climate Change," June 21].

I've done some reading on the topic, and according to one of the books I've read, man is only responsible for 0.3 percent of all the CO2 present in the atmosphere. Yeah, that's less than half of 1 percent. And I'm sure they've read the reports that over the last decade global temperatures have dropped, thus necessitating the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so as not to lose the ability to stoke the crisis mentality.

Here's another tidbit that I've found while researching the topic. It's a U.S. Senate Minority Report about how more than 700 scientists that originally were on board with global warming have now jumped ship and rejected the man made disaster as bunk.

Now, I've lived in Southern California all my life, and I can testify to how much better the air quality is now than when I was a kid, and I agree that we need to make the best use of our resources. The problem I have is when people (not necessarily these professors) use a "sky is falling" mentality to control the general population and line their own pockets.

The report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC-NAS) claims that the climate is warming and the cause is human. The first claim of this federally funded $6 million exercise is meaningless and trivial; the second claim is almost surely wrong ("Tax dollars perpetuate global-warming fiction," Comment & Analysis, Wednesday).

The report's recommendation is for the United States to put a price on carbon to staunch emissions of carbon dioxide, which is pointless, counterproductive and very costly.

The climate certainly has warmed considerably in the past 10,000 years (when the last Ice Age ended), but much less since 1850 (the end of the Little Ice Age). No one disputes these facts. But the climate has not warmed during the past decade, in spite of the steady rise in human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. According to Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, there has been no warming trend since 1995.

The 2007 report of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) furnished no credible evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NRC-NAS panel did not add any new relevant information - nor did it have the expertise to do so.

Let's hope that your editorial, "Arnold's global warming ardor cooling" [March 30], marks the beginning of new sanity emerging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the massive economic destruction that AB 32 will bring to California if we implement its onerous and, from a global-impact perspective, totally meaningless provisions. There is no more iconic symbol of the colossal failure of the global-warming alarmists' climate-fear predictions than the claim that the Arctic sea ice will disappear in a few years. All 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report Arctic sea ice model predictions show that there will be no recovery of this ice from its recent historical low point in the summer of 2007. Yet a huge recovery of that sea ice is exactly what has happened again, showing how political activist scientists twisted their models and data to get the "right" answer.

A number of studies published in the Geophysical Research Letters by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory starting in late 2007 used satellite data to show that unusual Arctic winds conditions, and not global warming, drove the recent 2007 reductions in sea ice. Yet these studies were simply ignored by the climate alarmists. Later studies have shown that these wind conditions have abated, which is leading to increased sea ice growth.

According to surface temperature data from the Climate Research Unit, Arctic temperatures have declined since 2004 and continue that trend. Thus the 2007 Arctic sea ice decline was not driven by changes in temperatures, which further supports the conclusions of the JPL studies.

What caused the ice ages of 10,000-plus years ago to melt? Environmental activists, 2,500 climate scientists and want-to-be scientists are claiming man is causing the warming trend, leading to drastic earth changes such as icebergs melting, oceans rising, polar bears disappearing, and the climate getting hotter and hotter.

This led to the Copenhagen Conference where world leaders were to decide what percentage of carbon gas emissions a country could eliminate and western, rich countries would give money to the poorer countries to work on the problem.

I am of the opinion that this man made warming trend is a lie. I think the intent is for the UN and a few other organizations to get their hands on a steady flow of money. The UN needs and wants a steady flow of money so it can exist.

Many climate scientists have pushed the man-made warming theory to obtain large grants of money. Many times these grants come from the very people who want to blame man for all ills on the planet for their own purposes. Follow the money and you will learn a lot.

- 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.