Climate Wars. Fakery, Misdirection and Obfuscation

News Release – Please report and pass on – Thank You
BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ is FRAUD WITH LIPSTICK SAYS SCIENTIST – BBC
ATTACKED FOR LACK OF INTEGRITY AND CHALLENGED TO DEBATE
Initial response to BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ 14th Sept 2008
from Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
+44(0)7958713320 / +44(0)2079399946 , piers@weatheraction.com

1. This ‘Climate wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort
from the BBC’s ‘green religion
department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to
be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no
answers to the mounting  evidence which refutes the crumbling Global
Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains
fraud.
=> They selectively report part of ‘weak’ sceptics contributions which
are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can
soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers mantra.
=> They  misrepresents the observed facts and choose ‘straw-man’
methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying
to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
=> They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal
innuendo rather than discussing  the issues – ‘Smear or belittle the
messenger if you don’t like the message’

2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming ‘exceptional’ world
temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud
and ‘improvements’ on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the
Climate Crisis industry are also fraud  – with lipstick.
For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher Monkton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
For the record I concur fully with Christopher Monckton’s piece here
referenced including his conclusions.

3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is
over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a
driver of world temperatures or Climate Change – indeed the evidence
is the relationship is more the other way around:-
a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when
the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data
which the ‘Global Warmers’ refuse to properly consider.
b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years
while CO2 is rising rapidly.
c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000
years ago  to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed
Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), had LESS
ice in the Arctic and there was notably  LESS CO2 than now.
The UN Climate Committee – the IPCC – is deliberately ignoring or
covering-up these facts which show in official data.
However rather than investigating the accountability of the UN and our
elected representatives the BBC seems to want independent scientists
and the public to be accountable to the UN and governments. See links
below for information and the letter to Ban-Ki moon UN Secretary
General and Tim Yeo MP from 13 world scientists and environmentalists

4. Attempts to prove CO2 effect ‘right’ by challenging an incomplete
version of one solar theory are doubly dishonest because:
a) One theory being inadequate does not prove CO2 has any effect. The
CO2 theory already lies in tatters – refuted by data evidence. No
amount of enraged shooting at others can revive it.
b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as ‘solar theory’ are
the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the
scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal
Inquisition.
The main periodical solar activity effect – the largest observed
periodicity present in world temperature data – is the 22 yr cycle
(driven by sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for aboiut half the
time the 11 year cycle of solar activity – of particles, sunspots and
radiation – will move with temperature and half the time move against
it. This is well known to solar and climate scientists. All the
pseudo-scientists have done is essentially choose time spans where the
two move in opposite directions and ignore demonstrated correlations
on longer time spans. Those who do this are either unbelievably
ignorant of their own subject or deliberately deceptive.  BBC web
‘information’ on the matter refuses to publish the truth despite
requests and in this programme avoids interviewing scientists in
Britain or overseas who research in and understand and apply sun-earth
magnetic and particle effects in provably skilled weather and climate
forecasting***. CO2 based climate and seasonal weather forecasts on
the other hand show no skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a
decade and have got worse in the last few years.

5. I challenge – and there are other scientists who can also
challenge –  the ‘Climate Wars’ programme producer to public televised
debate with himself or any scientist they want to put forward.
If they had answers to the many refutations of their theory then the
UN Secretary General or its Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
Parliament Environment Audit committee (chair Tim Yeo MP*) would
respond to letters but they have all failed to answer simple requests
for evidence to support their theory and policies under which they
expect the world to be taxed and go further into food price crisis and
recession. The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki moon  Secretary general
of the UN – http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
– has still not been even acknowledged.

Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

Piers Corbyn
Astrophysicist WeatherAction long range forecasters

The Perfect Target

James Hutton :-“The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.”

Expect the wailing and gnashing of teeth to really gather momentum round about now. The cold is starting to bite. The warmers will see their CO2 disappear into the sinks more swiftly from now on. It’s lifetime in the atmosphere being between 5 to 16 years and 50 to 80 years, according to sink utilized and if it is warm which is stopping about now. In fact one of the best things about CO2 is its lifetime in atmosphere. We will reap the benefits of boosted levels for 50 to 80 years after “fossil” fuels run out.

Luckily we have about 150 years of those “fossil” fuels (more for coal)that are easily recoverable. Enough time for human ingenuity, resilience and tenacity to produce several VIABLE alternatives. If we haven’t weaned ourselves off the teat by then we deserve what we get.

The CO2 level will still only be around 850ppmv when we have burned all the good stuff – compare that with the concentrations in your front room when friends come round to dinner – 2000+ppmv. A crowded office with regulation ventilation – 1000+ppmv. A commercial greenhouse – 1500+ppmv. A nuclear-powered attack submarine – 4,000+ppmv – yes that is 0.04% of the total gasses and is considered a safe level that does not impinge upon intellect or harm bodily function. Quick. Where are the spacesuits?

The “forcing” due to CO2 being over 22ppmv, or 50ppmv according to some, drops off logarithmically above those levels – all the blather about “doubling” is exactly that. Blather. If CO2 could somehow quadruple from current levels we would see no added temperature effect above that which has already occurred.

The other, main, misrepresentation of CO2 is that it is a “well mixed” component of the atmosphere. I remember an engineer telling me, when CO2 was first made out to be the bad guy, “it is by far the heaviest gas and hugs the ground which is lucky for the vegetation and plankton of this world” which fits with its specific gravity of 1.5+.

Another crafted lie about the most basic component of life itself; Increases in CO2 put pressure on the oceans and their “acidity” levels. Not. The oceans are alkaline and likely to stay that way even if the CO2 content rises from the current 50 times atmospheric to 300 times which has been seen before and failed to kill sea borne life.

Photosynthesis has a cumulative cooling effect and the planet’s biomass increase due to CO2 rising above “dangerous” levels in the last 100 years has lead to (latest figures) a 7% increase in measurable foliage worldwide. Subsequent increases in agricultural yield are a given.

The laughable twisting of the life giving gas into some sort of polluting killer is where the whole charade falls down.

We have much bigger fish to fry but they are difficult for the elite to monetize through taxation etc, – hence CO2, the perfect target.

As one carbon based life-form to another (please excuse my CO2 exhalation as I speak) “Live long and prosper.”

Listen. CO2 is innocent. Follow the money.

Northern Ireland Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson :- “Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists…….hysterical psuedo-religion”. Recently Mr Wilson said he refused to “blindly accept” the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change. He said, “The tactic used by the “green gang” is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact,”. “Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists.” And lo, the prophecy is fulfilled; John Woods of Friends of the Earth said Mr Wilson was “like a cigarette salesman denying that smoking causes cancer”. Right now Northern Ireland, via Mr Wilson could become the centre of world media attention. If they could only expose this stuff they could end up with substancially greater rewards than just blindly following faux science and paying handsomely for the privilege. The savings would be huge. To lives and economies. Worthwhile? You decide. By demanding a debate you could show the world how a charlatan can accrue 100 million dollars in just 8 years using fear, uncertainty and doubt whilst not practising what he preacheth. Al Gore can only continue to cash in on carbon while the situation is anything but “settled science” because the lack of debate is over a complete unknown and there is no “knock-out punch” on either side at this moment. This wouldn’t matter if his, and his friends’ influence with government had not pushed people to the brink of starvation, nations to the edge of bankruptcy and science to the margins of comedy.The tiny, tiny amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere feed the world. It is a fundamental part of the carbon cycle for which we carbon based life-forms are surely grateful. The incidental fact that it is produced whenever we, as animal inhabitants of this world attempt to create comfort is dwarfed by the focus of commerce, through the prism of politics, to manipulate economies (and maybe create one single economy in the process), stunt growth and subjugate humanity. All the loudest voices depend upon climate change, in the form of global warming for a living or to make their fortunes or to control assets. The dumbest just keep their mouths shut and accept the cheques. The smart ones are investing heavily in renewables that, co-incidentally, are as far away from being efficient enough to pay for themselves – ever – as the same length of time we can continue our use of coal and oil at the current rate before we get a little tight with it. During this period we will double CO2 “they” say. This will raise the mythical temperature of the mean by 2.0C “they” say. This figure would still be 1/2 the amount we put into a greenhouse to promote growth and 1/4 of the amount that exists in your average living room with 4 people exhaling. “They” say. In 100 years if we have not weaned ourselves from the teat of organic fuel we deserve to move back into the caves. Problem being. There has not been a debate. A nice long one with security guards and judges.  

My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma……

Charles Sanders Pierce :-
“There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be.”

Science will be in very bad shape soon. Some of our esteemed scholars may well get chased down in the street and lynched when it becomes apparent to the “common” man that the “reason” their relatives are starving, their pockets are empty and that human progress has halted was based on lies that were known to be so from the outset, yet were perpetuated because scientists would not stand and be counted even though they knew they were defrauding their nations, indeed all of humanity, when they applied for, and accepted funding.

Dressing up environmentalism in a mortar board and cape does not make it a superhero. It is a depressing(in all the senses of that word) misguided, if not spiteful, movement that disregards mankind’s ability to progress and, when the time is right clean up after itself, using whatever comes to hand.

We ignorant paranoiacs will have the last laugh – please forgive some of us for giggling in anticipation. At least we aren’t drooling and gibbering over imaginary bogeymen (CO2) and all too horribly real poison dwarves -Algorythm Al and His Hanson-ness – and their lapdogs.

This is what bothers me about you guys. You claim scientific credentials yet are religious in your unswerving faith that CO2 is bad m’kay. Your superior diagnostic skills should have you on our side of the fence at the first mention of anything that smells like the fish that we are wafted with daily.

Don’t get angry, or derogatory, just because nature is disproving your pet theory on climate – use your science to create a new pet. That is what it is for. Huddling together like witch doctors and agreeing with despots does nothing to advance science. The exact opposite in fact. You will be found out. Someone brave right now could make a name for themselves. Not saying you could make a hundred million dollars like some people but……

Your duty, as scientists, is to question theory until it either breaks down and confesses that it has been evasive or it produces repeatable, verifiable, even elegant, proof of its utility. Having failed to prove CO2 is driving temperatures you should move on and attempt to discover what is.

(dog-something anyway)

The World Turned Upside Down.

Arthur Lee :-
“They’re locking them up today, they’re throwing away the key. I wonder who it’ll be tomorrow? You or me?”


This lunatic has got to be stopped:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
His madness has infected, and infested, nearly every political party on Earth. His dogma is overshadowing the developed world and aims at keeping everyone else nose down in the dirt where, in his bigoted opinion, they belong. The political institution he represents (NASA) was created to engender progress, yet now he is allowed to spout dogmatic revisionism. How did a vicious Luddite such as this slither into a position of power in a science based entity? How does his every venomous word get trumpeted from the heights of the main stream media whilst stifling sensible prognostication from visionaries like Reid Bryson (RIP), whose death raised little noise yet is probably being smiled about by this creeping messianic invertebrate who was quoted as saying “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead” …..??? He got part of his sick little “wish” and the world is a poorer place today.

This Goron is the sole reason anyone is worried about CO2. He has been harping on about it for 20 years…. yet:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/C2.php

Well, Reid Bryson was a climate scientist’s climate scientist. In 1948, he became the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology, he once said “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide” and he actually saved lives through his science.

Hansen, on the other hand, has failed to save his own skin, or reputation, after the hockey stick fiasco and his failure to apologize points him out as a totally political creature. And! Everyone keeps quoting him as “…the world’s leading climate scientist…” HE IS AN ACCOUNTANT (well ok, mathematician – although he can’t get his basic arithmetic into any sort of coherent shape)
This rubbish is why real(yeah, like really real)climate dot org is a poisonous nest of vipers that lies about anything contrary to the common hymn book. Run by the hounds of hansen, guardian of the data. Funny how the satellite data, from UAH and RSS both, are consistently even and consistently well below the “rising” figures from NASA and Hadley Met/CRU. He who pays the piper….

Get this hansen:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

“CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant compared to the effect of water vapour.”

“Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.”

So here is one of my main questions, asked before and never answered:
The world’s largest desert, Antarctica, has the lowest level of water vapour on the planet, bar none. If warming were caused by CO2 surely we would have a large temperature anomaly right there? Continuously?

And this:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/
(note how they refuse to use the giss data – and why)

Then get lost.

Actually, if he were to get these people into a courtroom a wish of my own would be granted. Get the lawyers in and let’s get to the bottom of this barrel of bull5hit. Before someone gets hurt.

Hey, You, Get Offa My Cloud.

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:
http://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 vigneronErl 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:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3052#comment-244302
It is a somewhat heated argument 😉

Some exceptions to the idiocy:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update
http://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.

Green Greed and Gravy.

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:

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html

http://icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf

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

and temps:

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

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

Time to stand up and be counted.

Permanent Temperature Data Torture.

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: http://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…

Is It Me, Or Is It Chilly In Here?

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

Rhodes Fairbridge:
http://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:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm

Ivanka Charvátová:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

Milutin Milankovitch:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Ren Zhenqiu of the Institute of Weather and Climate Research, Academy of Meteorological Science, SMA, Beijing:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u56425j172359461/

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

Meet The Gorons.

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 provide evidence of AGW? Can you show that 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 Argo (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 follows 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.”
http://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.

« Previous PageNext Page »