Oppression and despotically forced new energy technologies, like the now realized devastating pitfalls of ethanol and E85 including additional pollution BTW, will cause massive increases in the cost of living (Groceries and all products) and devastation to our economy; for as long as the tyrants in the Federal Government enforce it by the threat of taxes, penalties, fees, and other costs to be forcefully paid through the “AGENTS” of “The Matrix” called (IRS) Agents at the threat of jail or the point of their guns, the ability of the market and nature, of necessity to be free of immorality through enforcement of justice of “natural law” or the Ten Commandments as inscribedon the doors of the Supreme Court where Moses looks down from a mosaic on the wall with the tablets, will not be able to make the corrections necessary or allow further blessings of our creator for mankind to be realized for his will would be neutralized and superseded by the Federal Government. The JUNK science of Global Warming is a Theocracy of economic and liberty oppression that is of a congregational cult  that mankind would be wise to avoid.  - – Capt. Karl

5 Responses to “There Is No Atmospheric Green House Effect”

1. # crosspatchon 24 Mar 2009 at 1:31 am

   The thing is that it is very easy to use a term like “greenhouse” that most people are familiar with and they can understand and then you make them afraid but offer them a path to deliverance if they just elect you to office and allow you to control industry.

   To debunk the idea, you have to be talking to someone that understands the math and physics involved.

   What we have today is a situation where if 51% of the people “believe in” something, it becomes truth. So it isn’t a matter of whether it is true or not, it is if one side is able to “sell” it to a greater number of people. That is what Hansen is complaining about when he said last week that the “democratic process” isn’t working in policy.

   Well, you can’t vote on physics. Things are what they are, one’s beliefs notwithstanding. We have increasing adult illiteracy, we have people who get their “news” from facebook. We are becoming an idiocracy. When 50% of the population is below the median intelligence level, it becomes very easy to sell them on things like this with simple concepts they can understand and very difficult to explain why those ideas are wrong when you need some understanding of physics to understand the argument.

   Before all the atmospheric CO2 was turned into oil, shale, gas, coal, limestone, and marble, it was in the atmosphere. The atmosphere had about 7,000 parts/million of CO2. It now has about 380ppm. When the atmosphere was at 7,000 ppm, the temperature was about 5 degrees warmer than now. It didn’t go into “runaway” and it didn’t destroy life.

   When modern fish and corals evolved, the CO2 content was down to about 1500 to 2000 parts/million. People rant that an increase in CO2 from 350ppm to 380ppm is “acidifying the ocean” and hurting species. And that is bunk because those species lived for millions of years when CO2 was much higher and thrived. In fact, only about 10,000 years ago the Great Barrier Reef was completely dead. It was dead because it was 400 feet above sea level. Ocean levels in the last ice age were about 400 to 500 feet lower than they are now. Every single coral reef we know today is less than 10,000 years old if it is in less than 400 feet of water.

   The reason the models go into runaway is that they assume an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. They assume an atmosphere than can not shed its heat at altitude. It assumes that the heat from the sun warms the CO2 and what leaks through heats the Earth and the Earth’s radiation further heats the atmosphere creating a “hot spot” in the troposphere several miles up. That isn’t happening. When you heat air (even air containing CO2) it rises. When it rises, it rises above most of the other CO2 in the atmosphere and its heat is radiated into space.

   A litmus test for the “greenhouse” effect is warming oceans. If there is a greenhouse, the oceans would be warming. They aren’t. Over the past several years the oceans have been cooling. Sea level rise which has been pretty much linear for the past thousand years or so stopped in 2006.

   No hot spot, no ocean warming, no sea level rise. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. Trouble is, too few people understand well enough to realize it. And those that DO understand are being bribed with research grants or are being fired when then voice their opinions.

   It is the biggest scam ever foisted on the people of the earth.

2. # crosspatchon 24 Mar 2009 at 1:38 am

   Also, atmospheric response to CO2 isn’t linear. Imagine an atmosphere with no CO2. If you add X parts per million to get a degree of temperature increase, you need to add 10 * X to get the next degree of rise. And then you need to add 100 * X to get the next degree of rise. Most of the impact of CO2 is already realized. That is why increasing CO2 to 7000 parts/million only results in a 5 degree rise in temperature.

   Oh, and another thing … all this fuss is about 0.7 degree rise over 100 years. It turns out that 0.5 degrees of that isn’t real. It is hidden in “adjustments” made to the temperature records. In other words, NOAA fudges the numbers and “adjusts” them up 0.5 degrees. Temperatures from the early part of the century are left unadjusted. Global warming is man made, alright, but not in the way you are expected to believe.

3. # crosspatchon 24 Mar 2009 at 2:50 am

   Here is another little tidbit about where people are being mislead. Weather is generated by differences in temperature. The greater the difference in temperature between two air masses, the stronger the storms will result when those masses collide.

   People are being led to believe that “global warming” is responsible for an increase in Midwestern US tornado activity. The fact is that cooling can be just as responsible. When cooler air flows down from the upper plains, it is the same as warmer air flowing up from the gulf. It isn’t the absolute temperature that creates the storm, it is the difference in temperature between the air masses.

   Air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico is mainly determined by the temperature of the water. Air flowing down from Canada is mainly determined by how much heat it can radiate into space. In a global warming scenario, the air coming from Canada would be warmer (because in the Global Warming model, temperatures at higher latitudes are impacted more) while air from the Gulf would be about the same. That is because it takes a very long time (months) to heat up water but it takes a very small amount of time (hours) to cool air. In a global warming situation, Midwestern tornadoes would DECREASE because the air flowing down from Canada would be warmer. There would be less difference in temperature with air flowing up from the Gulf. In a global cooling scenario, the difference would be greater and there would be more storms.

   Same with hurricanes. Hurricanes intensify mainly at night. This is because it is, again, temperature difference that drives a storm. The greater the difference in temperature between the surface and the air aloft, the more convection you get. It is convection that drives a storm. In global warming, the air aloft should get warmer. This should REDUCE convenction and result in weaker storms, not stronger storms. Global warming “experts” also rely on surface temperatures. What they need to rely on is the DIFFERENCE between surface temperature and the temperature at the top of the eye wall. The greater the difference, the stronger, the convection, and the more powerful the winds. The less difference, the weaker the convection.

   It isn’ t the surface anomaly that causes the storms, it is the anomaly of surface temp minus aloft temp that will tell you how much storm potential you have with tropical storms. If the air aloft is cold, you are bound to get stronger storms. If the sea surface is warmer you will get more storms started. If the surface is warmer AND the air aloft is colder you will get more storms and more powerful storms provided the winds aren’t so strong aloft that they blow the tops off the convection (sheer).

   A storm is a heat engine. It works on the difference in heat between two points, not the absolute heat at one point.

4. # daniel ortegaon 24 Mar 2009 at 10:39 am

   Just a question and I mean no disrespect.
   I understand the argument but why this?
   On a winter night, if the sky is clear, there is frost on the ground.
   But on a winter night, if later, a blanket of clouds come over,
   then there is no frost on the ground.
   ?
   The blanket of clouds appears to trap the heat, No?
   If the mechanism was just due to the convection then,
   it wouldn’t make any difference?

   I don’t like the eco-lunatics. I just want to understand.
   The convection only theory does not seem to fit my own observations.

5. # AJStrataon 24 Mar 2009 at 10:46 am

   Daniel,

   The clouds trap the heat by not allowing the air column to lift the warm air up where it is dissipated in space. That is not a radiation feedback loop. That is convection being limited by a mass of water vapor (the clouds).

   The main point is that convection (moving molecules rising with heat) and conduction (heat transfered by ‘touching’ – basically rapidly moving molecules banging into others and heating them up) do not differentiate CO2 from any other molecule. If these are the primary heat pump for the atmosphere, then removing or adding CO2 will have no measurable effect.

   The IPCC targets CO2 only because of their mythical IR feedback theory. If the IR feedback theory is not valid (and this paper shows that in spades) then the cap $ trade in CO2 levels is a useless exercise is futility.

“Oh MY, God!   That is code for $4.00/gallon gasoline and super skyrocketing higher heating, lighting and grocery costs…   And, just in time, when we are all losing our jobs and our economy is collapsing due to the Socialistic despotic Union loving Commie spendthrift likes of Dingy Harry and his ilk…    Isn’t that special?”   - -  Capt. Karl

AP

Thursday, February 19, 2009

WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up a bill to tackle global warming by the end of the summer.

The Nevada Democrat told The Associated Press in an interview late Thursday that the Senate in the next few weeks will move to pass an energy bill focusing on several of President Barack Obama’s priorities, but then ” hopefully late this summer do the global warming part of it.”

Senator Harry Reid (A.K.A.: Dingy Harry), Senate Majority Usurper.

There is widespread agreement that the climate change issue must be addressed. But there remains sharp disagreement on just how to do it.

Many Republicans argue that the Democrats’ plan to cap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming may be too expensive and produce higher energy costs. Democratic congressional leaders maintain that costs can be contained and that failure to act soon could have even more severe economic consequences.

Reid says he is convinced that many senators want to move on the issue this year.

“We have to take a whack at it,” he said.

Reid, who is up for re-election next year, has assumed a high profile on the need to promote “clean energy” sources such as wind, solar and biomass that do not produce carbon dioxide, the predominant greenhouse gas. These are also energy projects popular in Reid’s home state, where several major solar projects are under way or planned.

Next week, Reid will participate in a “clean energy” forum being convened by the Center for American

AlGore stands in front of the world he destroyed economically via the total scam of "Global Warming" causing massive increased costs of living on innocent human beings across the world.

Progress. Others participating will include former President Bill Clinton, possibly former Vice President Al Gore,and senior Obama administration officials.

Reid earlier this week said that he expected Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to produce an energy package within two weeks that will be ready for floor action. Among other things, Bingaman’s bill would require utilities to produce 4 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2011, increasing to 20 percent over the following decade, according to a draft of the legislation.  OH  MY  GOD ! ! ! !  Do you guys remember what happened to California?  The land of forcing all manner of Global Warming B.S. down the throats of their citizens in the form of “requirements”?  They are now over $42 BILLION DOLLARS in debt.  They have refused to send out tax refunds to millions of people expecting them.  They are talking of raising all sorts of taxes.  And, people are leaving California by the droves!  Don’t fall for this people, study, read and learn about the sham of Global Warming for yourselves.  The whole thing is B.S.!  I have spent months researching all of this.  You can find all sorts of science articles on The Liberty Tree Lantern so that these damn tyrants don’t screw with your minds, for the sake of controlling and manipulating us.  Much of our financial disaster has been caused by the false “beguilement” of Global Warming.  Our economy can’t take anymore of it before total collapse.

Reid said he favors a 20 percent renewable standard for utilities, but added, “we’ll get by with what we can.”

Many states already have requirements for utilities to use renewable energy, but attempts in Congress to establish a national requirement have fallen short repeatedly because of regional divisions. Lawmakers from the Southeast particularly have argued that utilities in their area would be hard pressed to meet a federal requirement because they lack wind or solar energy resources.

Reid said he also favors some additional tax incentives aimed at spurring energy efficiency, especially for construction of more energy efficient buildings.

“We’ve got to give people incentives to build better buildings and also do something about the buildings that are there right now,” said Reid.

But Reid said he doesn’t expect the Senate to tackle the issue of offshore oil drilling again.

While Congress last fall ended a drilling moratorium that covered 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, Reid said he’s convinced that Obama’s Interior Department will protect those areas where drilling shouldn’t be allowed.

“I don’t think we need to do anything legislatively,” he said.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently scrapped a Bush administration blueprint for offshore energy development through 2015 and said he was developing a new plan, keeping in mind that some areas are not suitable for drilling and putting greater emphasis on developing wind and wave energy projects offshore.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Do you folks have any idea how much more you are going to have to pay for energy if Dingy Harry gets his way?  Did you enjoy $4.00/ gallon gasoline, massive increases in the cost of heat and light and huge increased costs in groceries?  This is what is on tap if you don’t stop the Senate Majority Tyrant!

Have you seen the price of a barrel of crude go up about $4.00 today.  I was wondering how the price of oil could go up that much.  I figured it had something to do with B.O. and or his Interior Secretary of despotism and creator of massively higher cost of living expenses comrade Ken Salazar.  How could this bastard stop our oil companies from producing our own cheap domestic oil supplies?  That S.O.B.! ! ! !

If we don’t start doing something to force these oppressors to let our oil companies produce our energy supplies we are really headed for trouble when we already have so many people out of work and our economy failing.  Don’t you see what these people are doing to us?  When are we going to rise up and tell these bastards where to stick it?  When are we going to tell our public “SERVANTS’ to get the hell out of our way?  When are we going to tell them to DRILL  BABY,,,  DRILL!

How long are we going to let these bastards destroy our financial lives, especially when there are so many scientists that state that we are going into another ice age?  And NASA satilites indicate a downward temperature trend over almost ten years?  I sure haven’t seen any global warming lately?  Have you?  We’ve had a lot of below zero days here in Wisconsin and plenty of snow.

Excuse me, I need to go out to my garage and hold onto my pitchfork, again, for awhile.  I’m getting those forward twitching compulsions in my arms again.  Perhaps another rope and a box of ammo, too!

The Liberty Tree Lantern has long been telling our readers and patriots that the “Global Warming Theocracy” was going to be used to incorporate the New World Order otherwise known as a One World Government, to destroy freedom through the incremental destruction of The Constitution for the cause of “saving the world”.

Now Glen Beck has the pudding from

 which you can glean the truth: 

Glenn Beck: Obama’s socialist

climate czar

January 12, 2009 – 12:55 ET

GLENN: Let me tell you something. For those of you who think climate change is real and manmade, you should know this, that — I mean, you don’t have to be a socialist, I guess, to believe in global warming. It’s just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist. I mean, believes in manmade global warming that now can be fixed and reversed or whatever. And we’ve got the tools to fix it. Almost everybody who says, “I’ve got a plan to fix it” is a socialist. And let me just give you this quote. This is from An Inconvenient Book: Kyoto is — and I’m quoting — the first component of an authentic global governance, end quote. Jacques Chirac, 2000. It is a global governance idea. I read this weekend about a new green deal that the UN is starting to push, that there needs to be a new deal but it needs to be based on green. And guess who would go ahead and implement that for us. Isn’t that great? We could take all of the money that we’re spending on the bailouts — this is really the idea — take all the money that we’re spending on the bailouts and put it into a commission to be able to have a global green society that we could have a revolutionary new government. Scary? Scare you yet? Huh? A revolutionary government, a world body that would concentrate on bringing the world together through clean energy. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

Well, the new global warming czar listed as one of the 14 leaders of a socialist group commissioned for a sustainable world society. Socialists International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social Democratic parties such as the Labor Party over in Great Britain, says it supports socialism and is highly critical of U.S. policies. The group’s commission for a sustainable world society, the organization’s action arm on climate change, has developed — says the developed world must reduce its consumption and commit to a binding and punitive limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Mmm-hmmm. Mr. Obama who said that action on climate change would be a priority tapped Mrs. Browner for her new position last month as the White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. This appointment does not need Senate confirmation. She was tapped by the Obama administration. She’s been on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters and the Center For American Progress. She was also former vice president Al Gore’s Alliance For Climate Protection committee member as well. Her name has now been removed from the Gore organization’s website. The Socialist International website did not have a copy of her June 30th speech but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on how do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for sustainable futures. So in other words, how do we knit ourselves together as a globe?

Also on the panel was Sergey Mironov, speaker for Russian legislature’s upper chamber and close ally of Vladimir Putin, Zhang Zhijun, vice minister of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee; Jesús Caldera — it may actually be Jesus here. I’m not sure — the former minister of Employment and Social Affairs for the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. That’s who she was speaking with. Socialist International bills itself as the world body of Democratic Socialist movements. Its members range from Israel’s Labor Party to France’s socialist party to those who won the Angolan civil war with the aid of Soviet and Cuban troops. The organization distinguishes itself from violent or revolutionary communist parties. However, some such group, Chinese Communist Party have been invited to its events and guest organizations. The Democratic Socialists of America, not the Democratic party, is listed as the group’s U.S. representative. She is also listed as an individual member of the Socialist International but not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. In its meeting in 2008 in Santiago, Chile, Socialist International endorsed global governance — that’s a quote — as the solution to the world’s problems of climate change and peace. It’s working out real well in the Middle East now that we have the blue helmets involved.

Socialist International regularly blasts the construction of fencing along the U.S./Mexico border. The fence was approved in congress with Mr. Obama’s vote in the Senate.

You want to know what’s coming? All you have to do is, all you have to do is watch the news that isn’t being reported in the mainstream media. You know and I know that green is going to play a very large role. And they are going to be able to get green because people like me will tell you, “You know what? Here’s the thing, guys. We’re not putting any of this money into anything sustainable. We’re not putting this money, this bailout money, this $1.3 trillion in stimulus into new energy. We need to take and build some real, real future infrastructure. What we were doing during World War II was building a nuclear bomb. We were building jet engines for the first time. We had something to move into the private sector after the war. Now what are we doing? And so people will say, “Well, wait a minute, hang on. Obama, they are trying to work on new energy.” Yeah, but are you doing it with a global framework? See, the only reason I want to invest in green energy, I’ll invest in something new but I’ll let the private sector do it. The only way I want to do it is if we in the end can be able to have this technology and we can sell it to the rest of the world, pay ourselves out of this debt. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

There’s one more story here I want to share with you before we move off of this. I read Pravda this weekend. Have you read Pravda, I mean lately? I know, you instead just — I try to cut down on paper. So I just read the New York Times. Same thing, I know. Here are the headlines on Pravda: Will Obama give in to reparations. Headline number two: Obama prefers to guide his political stars himself, just like Abraham Lincoln. Next story: Sanctimonious hypocritical preaching by the imperials. It’s become rather common yearly and sometimes even monthly occurrence in the imperial elites of America as they gallop in on their white horses and read the riot act to the rest of the world, sometimes even to the EU on how to be a good republic. That is rather humorous as far as republics go because the U.S. is definitely a failed republic. Then the next story: The beginning of hope. Obama’s election may lend sucker to those who argue that the laws and policies designed to remedy racial discrimination by promoting opportunity and diversity are no longer necessary. Is it the beginning of hope in America? Then: Russian politicians being cautiously optimistic about the new American phenomena, Barack Obama. I love this story: A change for the better. Only Satan could have been worse than the Bush administration. Next story: Eight years of hell are over. Next story: The American election system. And it talks about how the voters in America are completely uninformed and that the systems don’t work.

The evil empire, if you will, is back. The Russians are looking to be the great global power again. Whether you like the fact or not, the Cold War is started again, the Cold War has started again and this one may not be just a Cold War because they need the price of oil to go up. Things and events are going to happen to be able to spike that price of oil because they need it. There’s — I just believe that there is, with the green New Deal being proposed now by the UN, with what happened last week with Merkel and Tony Blair and Sarkozy saying that capitalism as we know it is dead and needs to be revamped, in this new capitalism there is a place at the table for the state? That is called fascism. Capitalism is just a vehicle, but when you introduce the state into it, it’s fascism. And unless we educate ourselves, unless we really know what’s going on, we will have neighbors and friends. And that’s why you have to wake people up. Your neighbors and friends will say, “Oh, my gosh, yeah, but we’re in so much trouble, we’ve got to do this.” The groundwork is being laid right now by people who — do you trust the new global climate czar of the Barack Obama administration, somebody who’s a member of the socialist party, somebody who likes global governance? Is that who we have become? That’s why you need to wake your friends up now because in time the truest thing that was spoken on the campaign trail I think came out of the mouth of Joe Biden and that is, there will be a global event in the first six months. I don’t know if it will be in the first six months, but it’s coming. And he said, “We will do things that will seem wrong, but you have to trust us.” No, I don’t think we give our trust out like that. We gave our trust out on many other things like “You’ll never violate the value of a dollar.”

Swearing Allegiance to the Green Fringe

By William Warren

Environmentalists, global warming fanatics and Al Gore disciples are rejoicing this week upon hearing the news that Democrats have selected a new chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In a 136 to 122 vote among House Democrats, California representative Henry Waxman of California narrowly beat out John Dingell of Michigan to take over his 28-year-held post on the ever-influential energy committee.

The following quote from the Christian Science Monitor explains the importance of Mr. Waxman’s new role:

“The vote places Waxman in charge of a panel with one of the broadest jurisdictions of any congressional committee, responsible for legislative oversight relating to consumer protection, food and drug safety, air quality, energy supply and transmission, telecommunications, and a host of other matters relating to interstate and foreign commerce.”

As the former Clinton energy adviser Joseph Romm giddily proclaimed:

“Heck, it’s the second best piece of news on global warming this month!”

Unfortunately for the American people—much more the entirety of American industry—the news of Mr. Waxman’s ascension is anything but reassuring. In fact, it’s equally as foreboding for businesses as Barack Obama’s election has been for the U.S. stock market.

Consider for a moment, Mr. Dingell, the man Mr. Waxman has replaced. As the Wall Street Journal describes:

“He was first elected in 1955 and has always tried to protect his hometown Detroit auto makers from the eco-mandates that ultimately helped to land them in their present predicament…He knows that carbon regulation and taxes will fall most heavily on domestic manufacturing and Midwest states that rely on coal-fired power. His sympathies lie with the people who work near (or in) factories and drive Fords or Chevys.”

The Dingell defenestration aptly symbolizes the Democrats’ freshly sworn allegiance to the radical, anti-business, green fringe of America. This is the same fringe which values “eco” over economy and plants over people—all, of course, under the pseudo-religious banner of “global warming.”

Under Mr. Waxman’s watch, we can expect a high priority to be placed on the kind of eco-regulations and carbon emissions caps that make businesses shudder and industries wane—without the waxing. This is especially troubling considering the significant number of individuals losing their jobs in the face of a struggling economy.
Moreover, Mr. Waxman comes from the most peripheral outlier state when it comes to downright absurd environmentalist legislation: California. These include the mandated “global warming score” sticker of shame to be slapped on every car produced and San Francisco’s blanket ban on fireplaces. Apparently, California would rather humans freeze than the earth to warm.

While we’re at it, why not put the military in the hands of Berkeley or Washington, D.C. in charge of education?

Nevertheless, America’s energy henhouse is now in the hands of the environmentalist fox. Meanwhile, the greens are hatching eggs of jubilee.

It won’t be soon, however, until the egg is on the Democrats’ faces whilst more and more Americans suffer under the rotten economy.

William Warren is a contributing editor of ALG News Bureau.

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 

Update: December 22, 2008: 11 More Scientists Join Senate Report Link to Full Printable PDF Report  

INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.  The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming;  a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.  

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed.  Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.  An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.  India Issued a report challenging global warming fears.  International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”  

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

 Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:   

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.  

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. 

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” -  Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”  - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico  

  “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.   

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.  

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

 “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.  

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.  

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. 

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.  (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)     

#

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC;  the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary 

The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)  

Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:  

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (June 20, 2006 – LINK)      

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007):  “The scientific debate is over,” O’Brien said. ”We’re done.” O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007):  “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there — but that’s not the case.” (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK) 

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006:  ”After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

#  

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

By Patrick Briley
September 16, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski is Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor. Brzezenski was the national security advisor for President Carter from 1977 to 1981. In 1988 he endorsed HW Bush for President and was Co-Chair of the HW Bush national security advisory task force. From 1987 to 1989 he also served on the HW Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright was a student of Brzezenski.. GW Bush Secretary of State, Condi Rice (also a former national security advisor), who studied under Albright’s father, shares many of the same world government views with Brzezinski and Albright.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is an advocate of socialist world government, a goal he has promoted as a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and as a speaker at former Soviet Premier and Communist Mikhail Gorbachev’s first World Forum. Brzezinski is an architect of creating regions of global governance from independent nations to achieve world government. At the World Forum Brzezenski described the global regions that are now being put into place under Condi Rice: Israel and the Palestinians (now MEFTA, Middle East Free Trade Association), Iran as part of a Central Asian region, and China as part of a Far Eastern region. As a member of CSIS Brzezinski has guided their efforts to publish the North American Integration Monitor (2002) that calls for the loss of US sovereignty to a North American Union (NAU) as one of the regional global government blocks.

The proposals for global taxes by Obama have come with the recommendations of Zbigniew Brzezinski to pay for globalization and world government. Obama has proposed a global poverty tax in a US Senate bill. The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and “carbon footprints” from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body.

Obama, Brzezinski and Al Gore have worked closely with Communist backed environmental fronts led by Gorbachaev (proponent of Earth Charter, author of Manifesto for Earth), to promote the falsehood of significant global climate change due to manmade sources of greenhouse gases to scare the world and the US into paying such a global tax to “save the planet.” Prominent Republicans have bought into this scam including GW Bush, Condi Rice, John Warner, Joe Lieberman and John McCain who also have supported key provisions of the Climate Change Control bill as well as the Keyoto accords. The scam also leads to reduced oil production and greater dependence on foreign oil setting up the US for blackmail by Communist and Islamic nations who are increasing their oil production and exploration.

It is not an accident that Obama and Brzezinski are and have been in lock step with Communist and socialist world government plans. Obama’s longstanding ties with Communist, Marxist and Islamic terror mentors in the US have been well documented in the US and world press. What many do not know but need to know is that Zbigniew Brzezinski represents another one of these Islamic terror, socialistic, world government and Marxist mentors of Obama.

Brzezinski openly praises Marxism in his book Between Two Ages published in 1970. Incidentally Brzezenski’s father was an ambassador to Russia from Poland during Stalin’s reign and Zbigniew worked to protect and defend some East German intelligence agents of Stasi some of whose former members later worked to enable the 9/11 hijackers and other Islamic terrorists (Hamburg cell of Atta, Alshehhi and Jarrah). Like Obama, Brzezinski was not born in the continental US (born instead in Poland where he lived until near the age of ten before moving to Canada), and has dual US and Polish citizenship.

Zbigniew Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) with David Rockefeller in 1973 and was its first director. Brzezinski selected Jimmy Carter as a member while Carter was the governor of Georgia and before Carter became US President. TC is the primary organization managing the goals of globalization to achieve world government via manipulations of economies, politics and religions of nations around the world including the US.