Scepticism Rises

The following is from Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Courier Mail website:

Scepticism rises

93 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink    Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt    Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 02:25pm

gallop-poll

 

No wonder:

temp-change-chart

Meanwhile, the ABC’s Lateline confuses predictions with observations:

LISA MILLAR, PRESENTER: Alarming new research suggests sea levels may be rising a lot faster than was previously thought.

Not true:

sea-level-chart

Advertisements

Hansen’s former boss is a global warming sceptic!

In case you haven’t read it elsewhere, here is a copy of an item on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. It speaks for itself and is chock-a-block full of interesting references and links.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’
January 27, 2009

Posted By Marc Morano – 6:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

  James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic 

Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ 

Gore Faces Scientific Blowback  

Also See: Gore’s Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Defies Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’   

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

 

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’  &  Gore laments global warming efforts: ‘I’ve failed badly’ – Washington Post – November 11, 2008  ]

 

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

 

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.  [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen  UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]  

 

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

 

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former  top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

 

 Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released,  Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

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. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with  ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ]  In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”   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.”  More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. 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.”  

The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey  & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% — now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]  

 

 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 warminga 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.    

What can I say, but “Wow!”?

Population control and climate change

crowdSome AGW alarmists suggest that the human population will be “culled” by global warming. Other extremist “environmentalists” suggest a more proactive approach to reducing the human population. Being a tad fond of life personally, and being one of those people that believe people are special (with responsibilities which go with that “specialness”), I inwardly cringe at such suggestions.

However, the reality is that this world cannot support an infinite human population. The number of human beings needs to cap sometime.

So, do we just not think about something so horrible? I mean, its not like its going to happen in our lifetimes?

Or, do we listen to global warming alarmists and resile ourselves to doom, like Dr James Lovelock?

James Lovelock in the interview published in  One Last Chance to Save Mankind says:

Do you think we will survive?

I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It’s happening again.

I don’t think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing’s been done except endless talk and meetings.

I don’t think we can react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up

It’s a depressing outlook.

Not necessarily. I don’t think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen – a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare.

Real doomsday stuff!

OK, those are two ideas that don’t really appeal to me. Is there a third, or fourth … answer?

Let’s try this one on for size – eliminate world poverty.

Yep, that’s all, that’s not much to aim for.

Isn’t it? And how would that work anyway, you say?

Ever noticed that it is the developing nations which have large families ie higher birth rates? And, if there are no devasting wars, droughts or famines for other reasons, that their populations are growing? Compare that to developed countries who rely on immigration for population growth, even with greater longevity.

Where there are high mortality rates, family sizes are larger so that parents have a greater chance of having enough surviving children to care for the parents when the parents are elderly. In relatively prosperous countries people are not as concerned with survival, and find other things to do than create and raise children. (I can provide references if anyone wants them – I am trying not to be too soap boxish.)

Therefore, eliminate poverty and the feeling of threat for survival, and birth rates drop – dramatically. If people in all countries felt reasonably prosperous, every country would have low birth rates. Natural and painless population cap.

Personally I would rather have my share of the billions of dollars of tax money, which is currently being thrown at global warming ,go towards a united global effort to eliminate poverty. With the amount of money being wasted on the global warming scaremongering, eliminating world poverty would be achievable.

By the way – the Millenium Development Goals are another United Nations project. Ever heard of them?

James Lovelock wants to save the world by burying charcoal

New Scientist published an interview with Dr James Lovelock titled One last chance to save mankindon 23 January 2009. James Lovelock is the originator of the Gaia Theory. This theory has evolved over time and gaiatheory.org describes the theory as:

 The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability. In a phrase, “life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival.”

Here are a few excerpts from the interview with James Lovelock. It is interesting that James Lovelock has a rather fatalistic view on global warming. He does, however, propose one action which has a chance of “saving the world”.

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt – that’s an awful lot of countryside.

And later …

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste – which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering – into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won’t do it.

But still he is optomistic ….

Do you think we will survive?

I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It’s happening again.

OK, so he is a global warming alarmist. I also think it safe to say he is not a creationist.

What alarms me is the extremes to which global warming alarmists propose we go in order to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Let’s think through the charcoal burying idea.

The idea is to lock the carbon into charcoal, and prevent microbes from consuming dead leaves etc and exhaling CO2 as a bi-product. So, we should starve off a few billion microbes, close to the bottom of the food chain, to replace the fossil fuels we burn with charcoal which we then bury?

Just how much biological waste do they propose turning into charcoal? What will the effect on the food chain be? What about soil quality and fertility?

There must be a better answer than this.

Oxygen Causes Greenhouse Gases!

If greenhouse gases are causing global warming, then we need to eliminate oxygen to rid our planet of greenhouse gases.

Look at the components of the major greenhouse gases –

  • water vapour – H2O
  • carbon dioxide – CO2
  • methane – CH4
  • nitrous oxide – N2O
  • ozone – O3
  • CFC’s – various combinations of carbon, flourine and chlorine

Four of the major GHG’s include oxygen! Our atmosphere now has about 21% oxygen – oxygen molecules just floating around waiting to form into one of these greenhouse gases!

Oxygen is also responsible for devastating bush fires around the globe every year – fires need oxygen.

So where is all of this terrible oxygen coming from? Plants! That grass, the flowers, shrubs and trees you planted around your home because they “look nice” are actually poisoning our atmosphere with oxygen!

Scientists have discovered that plants create oxygen through a complex process called photosynthesis. Plants absorb sunlight (that’s right – plants are even stealing our light source!) through chlorophyll (the stuff that makes them look green) and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, keep the carbon to themselves and transpire oxygen and water vapour – the two most populous greenhouse gases!

This is a world wide emergency! What can be done about all of this oxygen!

What’s worse, scientists have discovered that growing plants create more oxygen than unhealthy plants, and computer models show that these plants will continue to grow at more than 10% a year unless we do something about this!

Firstly, we need to stop more oxygen being added to the atmosphere. We need to rid the planet of all of these plants. That won’t be easy, especially as scientists have discovered plants called algae live in our oceans, seas and rivers.

Secondly, we need to remove all oxygen from the atmosphere somehow and bury it underground. This will require very complex new science, so governments around the world will need to dedicate billions of dollars to research to study the effects of oxygen and discover how to safely remove it from our atmosphere.

What was that? People need to breath oxygen? We can’t have that! What a terrible addiction! In that case we also need every government to prepare a National Adaptation Program Assessment to show how they will assist their people to wean themselves off this silly addiction and lodge it with the United Nations.

In fact, with such a looming catastrophe of global proportions, the UN had better set up a new coordinating body. I suggest IPOD – Intergovernmental Panel for Oxygen Destruction. They will need to have frequent meetings at different places all around the globe to demonstrate their commitment to this serious problem. Meetings will probably be held in forests, surrounded by the cause of this problem, to remind people of the purpose of the cause.

What do you mean, don’t be ridiculous? Are you denying that oxygen forms part of most greenhouse gases and that the atmosphere is 21% oxygen? Are you doubting years of scientific research which has proven that photosynthesis is the main cause of this oxygen?  

Spread the word and share your ideas on how to save the world from oxygen!

Obama told Australia’s coal is killing the world

Now this is a story no global warming sceptic could leave alone. Professor James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has dumped on Australia’s coal industry – big time!

Refer Courier Mail’s on line news article “Australia destroying life on earth” earlier today.

James Hansen’s name pops up quite frequently in relation to global warming alarmist news. Professor Hansen has written an open letter to Michelle and Barack Obama, published on the internet because it wouldn’t be able to be hand delivered to him before his inauguration.

Being a sceptic, I looked up the letter myself, and yes, he did say the following …..

Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to
guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet

Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground.

What really gets my goat is that he claims that no-one expects oil and gas to stay in the ground, but that coal should.

He includes some other gems which were not reported in the newspaper article …..

Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm.

The Holocene Climate Optimum refers to the period of time between about 8,000 to 5,000 years ago. My reading tells me that CO2 levels then were 260 to 270 ppmv and the Earth’s temperature was up to 3 degrees C warmer than modern times. During that period, CO2 levels actually dipped a little, while temperatures rose. Since then, temperatures have lowered a little, with increases and decreases, while CO2 levels have gradually increased.

Going back over 5,000 years is well and truly before any man made CO2 influence. Going back further into prehistory, some scientists report the atmospheric CO2 levels were well over 1000 ppmv during some of the periods of greatest biodiversity. Presumably Professor Hansen doesn’t look back that far as he referred to the Holocene period as “Creation”. I have heard Christian ministers of religion refer to the Earth as 40,000 years old, not 8,000.

Since the Holocene Climate Optimum the Earth has experienced periods of unstable climate with successive moderate changes from warming to cooling and back again. There is some evidence that these climate changes were the undoing of the supremecy of some civilisations within recorded history.

Hmmm – the USA produces a fair bit of oil and gas, but little or no coal. Australia produces a heap of coal and lesser amounts of oil and gas. Why all of a sudden is oil and gas production and consumption OK, but coal is a no-no?

Has Professor Hansen become very patriotic, protective of US oil, gas and automotive industries? Has Professor Hansen discovered that somehow coal originating CO2 is worse for the world than oil and gas CO2? Or is Professor Hansen receiving sponsorship from the rich and powerful US oil and gas lobby?

Regardless of the reason for this twaddle from Professor Hansen, it just adds further “fuel” to the global warming sceptics’ concerns that the CO2 caused global warming alarmists stories are not realistic and that global warming alarmism lacks credibility.

The full letter can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

Dr Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year, Quoted ……

I was told about an Australian news item that I just couldn’t believe was real. I looked it up, and sure enough, it was real all right!

Dr Tim Flannery is a scientist – and 2007 Australian of the Year!

He is quoted by AAP, and therefore news all around the world, as having stated in a public address at Australia’s Parliament House that drastic measures are needed to curb global warming, including adding sulphur to plane fuel so that sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere and create cloud cover, and setting up an eBay style carbon trading scheme.

I know, I didn’t believe it either. Check out the 19 May 2008 story “Tim Flannery’s Radical Climate Change “Solution”” at news.com.au.

And he admits to having no idea what adding sulphur to the atmosphere would do to the planet!

Is this scientific statement as responsible as others that have been published?