David Hume :-
“Truth springs from argument amongst friends.”
None of us, whether we work for the IPCC, are climate scientists or are lay, have the foggiest idea how much of the recent “tiny, tiny” warming is man made. No one who creates, sustains and protects the “models” that predict future climate can, or will, say for “certain” because the simple reason is that there are nowhere near enough observations to draw conclusions from that most important of natural climate phenomena, clouds. The very clouds that are both a result and the main cause of the much maligned greenhouse effect that stops our planet from being a permanent ball of extremely cold ice and rock. We have very little in the way of recorded observations and records of the water vapor in the atmosphere to form an opinion, let alone a theory, as to the forcings caused by, and indeed resulting from, the water of life itself that co-mingles with CO2, the life giving gas, that we all inhale and breath out every minute of every day. Every plant does the same. One of the unspoken facts about “carbon offsetting” through the provision of trees, woods and forests is that, inconveniently, a growing tree will push 200 times as much water into the air as CO2. Couple this with the, at least, 100 times greater forcing that water vapor has on tropospheric warmth than carbon dioxide and what do you get? Answers, on a postcard please, to UN IPCC, somewhere exotic (preferably warm already) – you know, the usual costly air trip away at taxpayer expense to then berate said taxpayer for breathing out, earning a living, consuming product, watching tv or anything else that can be credited carbonwise.
Back to the clouds.

A new paper (March 31st, 2008) (by De-Zheng Sun and Tao Zhang of the Cooperative Institute for Environmental Studies/University of Colorado &NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Yongqiang Yu of LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China) shows us the way:
“…underestimating the negative feedback from cloud albedo and overestimating the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical Pacific during ENSO is a prevalent problem of climate models”
being just one of many gems contained in a paper whose abstract includes:
“…the feedbacks of water vapor and clouds—the cloud albedo feedback in particular—depend on the mean intensity of the hydrological cycle. We have also examined whether the variations among models of the feedback from cloud albedo (water vapor) in the ENSO variability are correlated with the variations among models of the feedback from cloud albedo (water vapor) in global warming. While we find a weak positive correlation between the variations among models in the feedback of water vapor during ENSO and the variations among models in the water vapor feedback during global warming, we find no significant correlation between the variations among models in the cloud albedo feedback during ENSO and the variations among models in the cloud albedo feedback during global warming.”
Paper here:

www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/dezheng.sun/dspapers/Sun-Yu-Zhang-JC-revised.pdf

Conclusions studiously ignored by mainstream scientists – again.
Does it take a vigneron – Erl Happ – to validate Dr Richard Lindzen’s “iris effect” and incorporate it into a Tropical Lower Troposphere cloud theory that puts climate scientists, not to mention NASA, NOAA and the IPCC, to shame? Check out the discussion here:

www.climateaudit.org/?p=3052#comment-244302

It is a somewhat heated argument

Some exceptions to the idiocy:

www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update

www.terradaily.com/reports/Widespread_Twilight_Zone_Detected_Around_Clouds_999.html

Climate scientists – and Solar physicists – should get out more. There is nothing new under the sun my arse. We will be glad of some cloud cover these coming decades.

Henri Frederic Amiel :-
“Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence.”

The only things rising in concert with the evil gas CO2 are taxes, blind faith and insanity.

Is CO2 causing insanity? Judging from the stupidity, ignorance, dogmatism and fundamentalist demagoguery that abounds today future historians may assume this to be the case. A vital component of life on this planet is being treated as if it were a demonic creature sucking the life out of mother nature and her cute inhabitants. The gas you breath out whilst you read this rant is vilified by the Gorons who know nothing of where its levels were 1000 years ago as the only proxy they rely on was pulled from the ice using diesel as a lubricant! The bubbles in the core explosively decompress as the core reaches the surface and the main components of our atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, have between 30 and 70 times more affinity with cold water than CO2. The life giving gas, which you see in action as you watch your children grow, is therefore smeared across time – the further you go back the lower the concentrations will seem to be. Those future historians may come to believe that a side effect of “too much CO2″ was a misguided belief that a 0.6C increase in global temperatures (whatever they are) was anything other than benign.

The tax aspect of course is political. The AlGorithm has “been given” nearly $1,000,000,000 in the last 6 weeks. $300,000,000 for “advertising” to the unbelievers that his “settled science” is gospel and a further $680,000,000 to “invest” in companies he already has an interest in.
In the face of stuff like this it is no wonder that the compliant main stream media has kicked other news under the carpet. News like:
The United Nations World Meteorological Organization recently reported that because of “part of what we call ‘variability’” global temperatures have not risen since 1998. This was explained away by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud as a cool spell brought on by the Pacific Ocean’s La Nina current. That wouldn’t be so bad in isolation but, as anyone who has had a look around will know, we are also in unknown territory as far as solar cycle 24 is concerned and with every passing day that it remains absent we will, in the near future, suffer from the cold. Furthermore, the Argo buoys, which were commissioned to end the unbelievers arguments, have failed to detect any signs of climate change. Dr. Josh Willis said, in an interview with National Public Radio, “there has been a very slight cooling” over the buoy’s five years of observation. One would hazard that if they showed “a very slight warming” we would still be listening to the crowing.

Some links of current (pun intended) interest:

weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html

icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf

ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/4810/13419/00615324.pdf?temp=x

and temps:

climate.uah.edu/maps/0408big.jpg

www.flickr.com/photos/7672614@N05/2319280978/

Time to stand up and be counted.

Harry Emerson Fosdick :-
“The fact that astronomies change while the stars abide is a true analogy of every realm of human life and thought, religion not least of all. No existent theology can be a final formulation of spiritual truth.”

The article here: www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ explains it better than anywhere in my opinion. Thus I leave it all to them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. With this revelation and the “news” that the PDO or the thermohaline circulation or the meridional overturning circulation being factored into a model for the first time has resulted in a new “estimate” that cooling will continue until 2015 – {klaxon}eeeerrggghh! I will have to stop you there. Wrong. Sorry, but 2015 is due to be very(very) cold in comparison to the the hallowed year of our Gored 1998. Time for someone to post all those temperature lists from …. oh yeah, one of the cheats. Time for someone to call me “useless troll” again – and express the hope that I hold zero scientific qualifications… again. Time for someone to explain why another stupid hack or paid lackey of the oil/coal companies or retired people who are out of their field or non climate scientists or someone who once proved secondary smoke doesn’t kill or a denialist nutter have got it all wrong and the news from realclimate/tamino/nasa is that we are still going to fry just not quite yet. Not before the next round of funding at least. Time for someone to cut’n'paste some stale stuff from a weird place. Time for the charlatans to be uncovered. Time for tax refunds, Oscar returns and Nobel retractions. Time for the “what to do about the cold?” and “can we stop making biofools of ourselves please?” type questions – oh, and let us debate the science in a public place. Soon too.
Unfortunately it is also time to endure the shrill shrieks of the true faithful writhing and contorting in ecstatic whirls in defense of the new spin – “Praise be! We have been given this holy pause in order to fulfill thy works oh Bored. We can take this blessed respite and pour despite all over it by insisting to the infidel that it will get warmer next time it gets warmer”. “Let us pay oh Bored”.
There may yet be apostasy. I always hold the hope that mankind solves problems, and learns whilst doing so. Hopefully this cool period before the cold will allow us to show conclusively that CO2 should be loved, up to and beyond say… 800ppmv to be on the safe side of caution. By then if we have not contained fusion or done better then we deserve to run out of “fossil” fuels.

Somewhere, not too far in the distance, crickets chirp…

Isaac Asimov :-
“When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Yes it is going to get colder soon. But will it get cold enough fast enough to make a difference to the Gorons? I believe they will pervert the coming cold period something like this: “we can use this opportunity to mitigate the effect of the recent 40ppmv increase in the life giving gas before the next heating event” through taxation and control of course. The policy has inertia now and will be hard to turn around. They will use anything that comes their way. Al did not get that $300 million to preach solely to the choir.

There is a cold period coming. No ice age but we will enter a cooling period from around now and for about 60 years. 2010 may be a bit warmer than 2008, 2009 but then it will cool. The cold kills both plants and animals more quickly and over a wider area than the relatively benign “heating” we have recently “suffered”. Arrogant? Not if you see what I see. I have had to sign non-disclosure on what I have been shown but can assure anyone who is interested that this is a verifiable, repeatable and elegant system that has proven itself with precipitation, wind strength/landfall and temperature prediction and also in hindcast to the point of being a meter for historical climate, invasion and exodus, drought, icepack density and the rise and fall of civilizations etc.
To my mind the arrogance lies with the dismissive crowd who talk past papers like this:

gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

because “it smacks of astrology” or due to other fears.

Our ancestors literally lived or died according to the efficacy of their observations, both of the weather and the cycles that allow its prediction including solar cycles. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Howard, Saxby, Herschel, and Milankovitch studied and published on this.

Some modern players and their work:

John Nelson, working for RCA as their astronomer, found he could predict disruptions to radio using a similar system. Later working for NASA he achieved an 85% success rate for long range prediction of radio conditions:

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,814720,00.html

Rhodes Fairbridge:

www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Paul D. Jose:
“Suns Motion and Sunspots”, The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 70, Number 3, April 1965; P. 193-200
(if anyone has an extant reference it would be gratefully appreciated)

Theodore Landscheidt:

bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm

Ivanka Charvátová:

www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

Milutin Milankovitch:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Ren Zhenqiu of the Institute of Weather and Climate Research, Academy of Meteorological Science, SMA, Beijing:

www.springerlink.com/content/u56425j172359461/

Khabibullo Abdusamatov head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg:

en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

All tantalizingly close to the system but, for various, sometimes multiple reasons, not precise enough to predict weather events. This has been remedied. But it will still get cold soon

Dorothy Thompson :-

“There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings.”

There are five basic questions that warming alarmists must answer on the path to true enlightenment grasshopper.
And here they are:

1) There are two known climate possibilities. The balance that sustains us with, like it or lump it, very little variation in the face of our disgorging CO2 into it, and the White Earth Equilibrium. Mathematically as likely as the one we inhabit yet, under its cold regime the seas are frozen and ice covers the continents. Why does ours prevail? Why has it done so since before the first ice age?

2) Do you dispute the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit data indicating no significant lower latitude high tropospheric warming? In the entirety of its existence? The very equipment that was provisioned to end any GW ambiguity?

3) Can you prove AGW? Can you prove the very small, and extremely benign, warming we have “suffered” in the last 100 years is a direct result of man’s activities? Or of his CO2 output? Without relying on software models. Using the scientific method? Can you point to someone who has?

4) Do you dispute the findings of the Argos (Buoy) data collection and location system?
Dr Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings has stated and “there has been a very slight cooling,” but insisted the temperature drop was “not anything really significant.” Can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relinquishing the chance to crow over a “very slight” warming?

5) Do you dispute that atmospheric CO2 level is driven by, or follow if you will, temperature?
“The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years.”

motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html

The satisfactory explanation of these five inquiries will lead you to that much vaunted destination that Al Gore and his ilk claim to already inhabit – The Truth Pertaining to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science, and especially theoretical hypothesis, would appear to be a journey just like most things in this tenuous limb of existence yet some assert they have completed it. They assume also that we must now bow down to their wisdom and take our medicine in the form of a repellent tax on the very stuff of life and the continued or accelerated  suppression of those in the third world.

Gloria Steinem :-
“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”

Some down to Earth views on the validity of CO2 as a “bad thing” and whether we could, or indeed should do anything at all to mitigate our < 10% contribution to the annual carbon cycle.

John R. Christy:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2′s radiation properties. However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.”
“I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.”

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

Richard S Lindzen:
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
“Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.”

Fred Singer:
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin”
“The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.”
“The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”

Roy Spencer:
“Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like ‘pollutant’.”
“Daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.”
“All of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.”
“A small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend.”

Who are these people?

John R. Christy Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, B.A., Mathematics, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the IPCC.

science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

Richard S Lindzen, Ph.D. Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published over 200 books and scientific papers, lead author of Chapter 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.

www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics; Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#bio

Now. Presenting those who contort and writhe and obfuscate and smear (ad hominem ad infinitum) in the hope of trashing the claims, careers, credibility or character of the above, luminous, climate scientists:

James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

What’s this! The scientists crying shrilly that AGW is real and we must pay to stop it do not have degrees in climatology? Or even climate related sciences? Surely not?

As for the funded demagogues who push the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant” and “the end of the world” and that anyone who supports a contrary view deserves all they get (and do these guys know how to hand it out)…..

Meet the Gorons…

Real Climate dot org:

James Hansen “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead”

Set up and funded by: Environmental Media Services. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

De Smog Blog:
James Hoggan: PR Lawyer. “The blog exists to identify unethical PR tactics and to expose the PR people who are trying to confuse the public about climate change.”
Ross Gelbspan: Wrote two books. One of them, Boiling Point, was the subject of the lead review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. That review was written by former Vice President Al Gore.

Maurice Strong:
Entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.
“Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Counts Al Gore as “a good friend”.

tamino:
Anonymous coward. Must be funded from somewhere as he spends all day torturing data and posting wherever he can. Loves Al’s stuff. Wants his babies.

These be the bones of the current malpractice - the kicking of the authoritative by the pejorative.

Albert Einstein :-
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

We enter a new dark age. The age of reason is behind us. We are cattle but we have no food. We are the playthings of a ruthless elite that consider us a noisy, possibly rebellious nuisance that need trimming, very soon.
Al Gore has $300,000,000 at his disposal to “persuade” those of us recalcitrant enough to question the A in AGW that we are wrong on the “settled science”. We are worth every penny as is evinced by the removal of the Haitian PM in the very recent history. If we were about to get angry because we are about to get hungry then its edjamacation time for us me laddie.

I have had a good look around these past few days and, in between baiting some alarmist warmers stroke scientists, I have seen some unsettling things. In amongst the loss of woodland birds in Britain and a similar decline in the bee populations in the USA there are increasingly frequent stirrings in the “news”papers and on TV. The journos and hacks are beginning to think (rightfully) that if lynch mobs are forming because bellies are empty then they may be some of the focus of the fury that is erupting worldwide. Famine is coming. So is cold as cycle 24 is late and we all know what cold brings with it. Pestilence, Exodus and War follow famine as surely as day follows night. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The insane idea that food can be easily turned into fuel without damaging the fragility of world food markets, stripping us of a varied biosphere and polluting it far more than continuing to rely on oil and coal ever could is coming home to roost. The envirobots have caused the first crisis of the 21st century. The rabid anti-everything green people haters have upset the apple cart good and proper. If their deranged misguidedness is allowed to sway the mind of one more politician in power, one more “prospective candidate”‘s threats of forced environmental stewardship or one more unhinged government policy we will see more of this dangerous loss of control over the “free” markets with the accompanying mayhem.

But. What hope do we really have. The blind truly are leading the blind here. There is absolutely, unequivocally and without question ZERO EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. If there were a single piece of evidence. A scrap of empirical proof. A smidgen of a fragment of a sliver of a fact that showed, repeatedly and incontrovertibly, that humans have caused the benign but piffling temperature rise that has occurred in the last 60 years by their use of fossil fuels there would still be the question: SHOULD WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

The aforementioned journalists are the front line of ordinary people’s defense here. It is time they woke up and read some papers themselves instead of spewing propagandistic bull5hit masquerading as science. There is not even a consensus on MMGW let alone scientific agreement. Even if there were this is not a popularity contest we are talking about. Time to stand up and be counted guys. It is one thing to toe the line when your career feeds and clothes your children but when the chances of that still happening this time next year as a slim as they appear to be now then it is time to jump up and down waving your arms and shouting. It was always your job to do so but now it is YOUR DUTY AS HUMAN BEINGS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. Let me make it a little easier on you. Read the next post and save yourself some time. I have done your research for you – all you need do is verify it and publish. Let’s get to work.

Breaking News:

Scientists call on UN Climate leaders to admit they are wrong and renounce Global Warming claims and ‘devastating policies’  

The letter:

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri

Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

c/o World Meteorological Organization

7bis Avenue de la Paix

C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,

Switzerland

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO₂ is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO₂ levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.If you believe there is evidence of the CO₂ driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO₂ levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO₂ rise. More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO₂ levels have risen dramatically.The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted – Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO₂ driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder Piers Corbyn Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen

Analytical Chemist Astrophysicist UK Prof. Em. Human Ecology Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared)

mMensa Dir. WeatherAction.com Australia Greenland

hans@tech-know.eu piers@weatheraction.com dnp@networksmm.com.au hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO₂ is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

2. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

——

Mark Twain :-
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

There is a movement underway to kill science. I will purposefully choose evangelical words and phrases from here on in. When likening AGW to a creed we are not far off the mark. Science and religion have recently swapped hats. We need a crusade to overturn the demagogic ideologues.

The satanic steamroller has a lot of momentum already.
Those scientists who have already thrown their weight behind it will fight tooth and claw to prevent opposing views from being debated, oh yeah, sorry, that is already happening. Politicians will not admit they were suckered, ever, on any subject, so don’t expect to get anything but short shrift from that quarter. The mainstream media will do as they are told, they abandoned the journalistic code www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp some time back and continue to draw salaries for propagating propaganda to the exclusion of all else, particularly the production and disbursement of unbiased news reporting. They all sing from the same hymnbook.
The Citizens, meanwhile, www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4975.3240.0.0 will go about their business in their manufactured, misinformed, myopic daze. Their suppressed guilt at being able to watch television, drink Starbucks and drive their SUV whilst other inhabitants of planet Earth are starving is being used against them while they sleep. Any truly sentient 1st world person has that guilt and the greens drip their dogma through this crack into our very subconscious. We begin to think that maybe there really are too many people and not enough resources. Maybe the world would be a better place if we stopped using oil and coal to power our infernal machine. Maybe a new stone age is the best option. Maybe following the credo of taxation leading to mitigation is the only path to that goal. Let us accept the draconian measures put forward by those paragons of truth and integrity such as Al Gore and the UN IPCC. After all they got the Dynamite prize for peace did they not? This endorsement surely trumps anything mere scientists can provide. After all our leaders were chosen so as to help us make these informed decisions and to implement policy in our best interests.

There has been a recent test on ABC “news”.
They attacked Fred Singer and a lot of people have reacted strongly www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059 but I feel that there will be no apology given, much less a platform for Fred to defend himself. The usual, false, accusation that he was funded by “Big Oil” is foremost in any attack on Fred but they miss a pertinent point. Whatever came out of “the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to misinform the American public about the reality of global warming”? Where are all the papers, peer reviewed or otherwise, disproving MMGW?

Some may feel this incredible assault was a show of strength, proving that the MSM can do anything. They besmirch one of the world’s most luminous innovators and ignore, or even hide his research and yet promote a proven liar and his science fiction horror story to the exclusion of all else – especially the truth. A set of lies that has, perversely but fittingly, garnered a “Fantasy land” award for a documentary not to mention $100,000,000 in the folding stuff inside the last 8(eight) years for its “creator”. We are through the looking glass. Freedom is slavery.

It all comes down to budgets and agenda. Environmentalism run rampant will produce the diametrical opposite to its stated aims. Maybe that is precisely its adherents’ hidden agenda. We are already seeing world markets in corn, wheat and rice being malformed by an equally twisted belief that food should be turned into fuel even when it is more damaging to the biosphere, more likely to lead to famine and more likely to stall real alternative developments than allowing the free market to prevail. The founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore has stated that Greenpeace itself and its’ policies; “Tend strongly to be anti-human”, “anti science and technology”, “anti-trade and anti-capitalism”, “anti-business”, “anti-civilization”, and “invariably misleading”. Greenpeace are only one arrow in the fundamentalists’ quiver.

They ignore, purposefully, the tortuous and hazard strewn road that got us from the cave to the space station. We lived without fire. Miserably. We burned wood and still merely subsisted even when we discovered charcoal and invented metalworking. We found the energy locked up in coal and even the working classes began to live longer and enjoy a modicum of leisure time. Oil is merely the next, fortuitously discovered step on this path toward a world without waste. Thankfully we have hundreds of years of easily exploited reserves of oil and coal to see us through until we find better alternatives. Doubly fortunate is the fact that the only, long lived, output when we burn this treasure sensibly is plant food and we are nowhere near(less than 25%) to having optimum levels of that present in our atmosphere. Even if another China was to burst onto the scene we have centuries before a truly beneficial concentration is achieved. Meanwhile we are exporting to the whole world, especially the developing nations who are most in need of it, free fertilizer. Another hateful waste in the envious green eyes of the environmentalists. Why should the useless eaters get anything for free, especially unfettered amounts of the life giving gas?

There is merit in the argument that climate change, and global warming in particular, allowed us to thrive and expand yet now it and the accompanying increase in CO2, which preceded the other, is made out to be a dangerous threat to humanity. Pull the other one it has alarm bells on it.

Time is a luxury we no longer have, even though cooling is upon us and the Sun will soon out all these “learned” idiots, we are in the grip of dark forces that hide under a banner of green yet are anything but.

Anais Nin :-
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.

AGW deniers don’t get funding even if they seek it. Simple as that. It amazes me that there is any work being done in that particular vacuum. This produces several outcomes. The obvious being that realists (read deniers) are poor and therefore poorly represented in the media and academia. Their patience would appear to be inversely proportional to the increasingly shrill bleating from the alarmist warmers camp as their proof dissolves and the Sun comes around to save us from unwarranted draconian intervention into our lives. Al Bore has not been given .3 of a billion dollars for advertising so as to preach to the choir.

The intelligence and penetration so obvious in most of the spiel from those who claim to “believe” the “settled science” shows me something interesting.

They do not care about the science, the environment or humanity. Quite the opposite. The eloquence displayed by the most tenacious warmers resembles the utterances of lawyers. Yet that same probing urge should naturally lead to questioning the story, its supposed proofs and it’s perpetrators, but no. Their energy is focussed into debunking, slandering, belittling or attacking those who feel their antennae prickle whenever lies fill the air. The elitists are the most vociferous. If we are so wrong why not ignore us? Eventually we will tire of the laughter and mockery and just wilt into the background. This smacks of a hidden agenda if you ask me. Follow the money.

Currently the only places where a dissenter can store or publish their work is either unfunded or “oil (or coal) funded” or “out of their field” or “previously proven to be liars” or “on a glossy website” or yadda yadda. The denialist camp have few supporters willing to throw their careers away or subject themselves to the abundant and constant vilification and spite of their opponents when patience will serve just as well. Most of us know it will get colder soon. It is the agenda driven side of climate debate that has the money, time and arrogance (in the face of nature’s previous and proven cyclicity) necessary for recognition by, and funds from, Universities and scientific bodies. Even if frivolous or proving to be subsequently bunk anyone mentioning the correct terminology when seeking MMGW money generally gets it.

For example, John Nicol’s paper on CO2:

icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf

Useful science which presents proof that above a stated (very low) level CO2 has little influence on the “greenhouse effect”. Opened up by the author for any criticism or suggested revision, including review by peers, this paper remains mostly unread, yet heatedly vilified by warmers purely by dint of it’s location. Its crime is to be published on icecap.us “already proven to be the repository of (insert slanderous accusation here)” – it must be bunkum.
Could he get something like that stored, cited or published by NASA? Or Nature? Or Science? Yet these same people will readily point dissenters to real climate dot org – a group of funded ideologues who secretly wish humanity, along with the Maunder, Sporer, Wolf and Dalton minima, would just blow away. The ones with children and mortgages are nearly forgiven, as they have mouths to feed and the teat of government is full to bursting for anyone willing to prostitute their degrees in the name of “bad monkey deserves slapping”. Not the milk of human kindness but that which issues from a sacred cow.

Do the hot heads feel some sort of moral obligation to educate the cool heads? They could just leave us realists to fend for ourselves. We have zero funding. We get zero media coverage. Why do we appear to be such a threat? Our output is minuscule in comparison to that of the machine they worship. The Spanish Inquisition had a greater excuse for a similarly fragile supposition.

Just because you have bought into the nightmare doesn’t mean that anyone who has not done so is wrong. Especially when the dream is propped up only by “computer models with 90% certainty”. It may mean that we do not wish to succumb to the darkness until presented with concrete evidence. We may merely intend to suspend our final judgment until a single proof emerges. One proof would do me (not coincidences or smoothed projections or best guesses or forecasts please. Just one concrete, measurable, repeatable, incontrovertible fact).
Even then the best course to steer may be to do nothing other than adapt to our changing biosphere. If indeed the world were to continue warming we should not be taxed into a new stone age as an excuse for a cure.