Nothing to See Here, Move Along….

Luther Burbank :- “We must learn that any person, who will not accept what he knows to be truth, for the very love of truth alone, is very definitely undermining his mental integrity.”

Faced with climategate, indeed everything-gate and the media avoidance of the same, it seems warranted to revisit 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 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.”
http://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.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu.
“It is quite likely that a significant part of the temperature rise after 1975 is due to the multi-decadal oscillation, not the greenhouse effect as hypothesized by the IPCC. The reason why the global warming trend stopped in about 2000 is likely to be due to the fact that after peaking in about 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has started to have a negative trend. The halting is not due to a La Niña. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about the present global warming trend and temperature. There were a number of periods when the temperature was higher than the present even after the recovery from the last Big Ice Age.”

Reid Bryson.
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Who are these upstarts?

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

Dr. Akasofu B.S. and M.S. in geophysics, Ph.D in geophysics, Professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964, director of the Geophysical Institute from 1986 until 1999, first director of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) upon its establishment in 1998, and remained in that position until 2007. The same year, the building which houses IARC was named in his honour.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Reid Bryson Atmospheric scientist, B.A. in geology Ph.D. in meteorology, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology in 1948, became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies. Most cited climatologist in the world.
http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html

We are constantly bombarded with the meme, “thousands of papers by thousands of scientists”

Whenever (every time, so far) I have asked for 3 of those papers that claim to be showing a specific CO2 physical effect upon atmosphere I have been ignored, had the subject talked around or I have been ridiculed for denying the CO2 effect.

All those “thousands of papers” that “all the world’s scientific institutions agree” with are focussed solely on the warming, mostly with regard to those “thousands of scientists” specialist fields. Or based upon models. Or guesswork.

It got a little further toward comfortable for the majority of our kin at the end of the last century. Check.

The physical properties of CO2 allow it to interact with certain aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum. Check.

Mankind liberates CO2. Check.

CO2 in atmosphere is well-mixed.Please check.

Plant respiration cancels CO2 “heating” effect. Please check.

And, last but definitely not least, CO2 caused the warming of the last 30 years of the 20th century. Erm… Please check.

The Only Field Where all Concur is Full of Sheep….

H.L. Mencken :- “All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.”

So, now, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser John Beddington says it’s OK for me to claim the world is flat. Less than a year after he declared that cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from climate change, all before 2030 by the way, were certain. This “scientist” now says “There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed” and “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism”. So, I ask, what has changed to change his point of view on the settled science of climate change?

Oh yes, LOTS of the protagonists got caught with their hands in the till, cookie jar, nurse’s bra. I have tried to refrain from gloating over the climategate stuff. I have avoided taking pot-shots at the more obvious sitting ducks but this cannot pass without some questions.

The entire environmental movement has been hacked by agenda pushers. Would those who have fallen for the “CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of last century” prevarication now become the most loudly vociferous in denouncing the climate fraternity as they are the most grievously wounded and monstrously deceived?

No, the people who have been happily and continuously vilifying anyone who questioned their dogma can only fall back on the precautionary principle. Do they not understand that to make progress it may be in the biosphere’s best interest for us to go about “business as usual” which, so far, has not come close to dragging the global temperature anywhere near even the least worst of the doom-laden predictions of a corrupt division of a corrupt organization or, for that matter, the global economy into convulsions, as the belief in the efficacy of models did to the banking fraternity’s playing fast and loose with everyone’s money.

Will they excuse the lies, fraud and obfuscation as “necessary evils” on the path to global emissions reduction, even if this would appear to be an utterly useless course both for humanity’s betterment and the very real greening of the planet that NASA has observed?

The people who support the CRU and the UN in these matters have shown a herd mentality of epic proportion. They have allowed a fictional threat to divert much needed funds, media focus and public attention away from real and pressing problems such as deforestation, overfishing, chemical pollution, water mismanagement and other truly egregious assaults on Mother Earth.

The supposed defenders of the environment, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have colluded with, nay empowered, this cabal of anti-progress, anti-science and anti-human liars. They and their supporters should now be the loudest of voices shouting for reinvestigation of the records, a new broom to sweep the self-seeking from their offices and a fresh look at the science.

Yet most of the betrayed have meekly rolled over, turned their blind eye and maintained their belief, for it is now very evident that that is all it is, a belief in the “thousands of papers” by “thousands of scientists” supported by “the majority of scientific institutions” that merely show the warming and have comprehensibly failed to provide a single jot of repeatable, real world evidence that humanity’s additional CO2 caused that very beneficial 0.7C increase in delta T over the last 30 years of the 20th century.

That, it has become increasingly clear, is the only question “the powers that be” ever intended to address. They will now use every compliant tentacle to show ocean acidification, methane, speed of release and other “virtual certainties” of our continued liberation of CO2 warrant further deep intrusion into individual lifestyles and more yet taxation to cure the problems they hype. But this time they will be a little more circumspect and will attempt to shut down the blogosphere that has been the sole organ that exposed them as loons prancing around without any clothes.