Climategate 2.0 with more to come

The human induced CO2 climate change propaganda just took another hit. The Air Vent is all over it as is Climate Depot

Just in time for Durban

 The Green Agenda sought a unifying focus for world government:

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

The IPCC was formed in 1988 to carry out the plan. Pinky and The Brain.


And now we see the results. Government money buys corruption and fraud.The scientific process is undermined and falsified data are manipulated to produce a desired result without which the Green Agenda cannot be sold. The Agenda is the God revered; reality bent to make it appear justified.

George Orwell would be proud.

The Green Agenda has been exposed and tattered by some honest people with the right stuff:

FOIA2011.zip

Scientists are in revolt. See this very telling article by Karin McQuillan 

Be not afraid. Let the truth be known. Let freedom reign.

Decline in deaths from extreme weather

See a recent report from the Reason Foundation on: Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010 here


Extreme weather events cause more deaths in poor areas than in developed areas. Global warming, human induced or not, is not a threat to humans but poverty is.

Questions for CAGW alarmists

What would convince you that CAGW was not really happening?

How would you determine that a new Ice Age was in progress?

What would convince you the CO2 had nothing to do with a warming trend?

At the Summit Station in Greenland they built the Big House on stilts.I will leave it to you to ascertain the reason for this. In the last 30 years of global warming how many times have they had to lower the Big House to grade? A hint is provided here.

What should the average temperature of the Earth be and why?

How much CO2 in ppm should be in our atmosphere and how did you arrive at this number?

What would convince you that something is not unprecedented?

What would convince you that something is not unequivocal?

Why do some humans try to scare other humans?

How many doomsday scenarios of the  past do you know that have been actualized? How many times in the past have humans destroyed the Earth?

Why do you think that is?

And how many times in the past, because of false beliefs, have humans engaged in practices that have been harmful to themselves rather than the Earth? Humans hurting other humans by their dedication to dogma and the demonisation of those who disagree with them has a long and macabre history.

And in the case of CO2, are we more likely to harm ourselves by policies that attempt to reduce our CO2 emissions or are we more likely to successfully control the climate by such policies?

What will be the effect of carbon reduction policies on the poor people of the world? 

If bad weather has happened in the past when CO2 was lower and bad weather is happening today when CO2 is higher do you really think there is a connection between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the weather?

Do you really think that humans know how to prevent tornadoes? Will less CO2 in the atmosphere really produce fewer tornadoes? Will global warming produce more tornadoes?

Is it more likely that CO2 reduction policies are meant to serve another agenda or that they are really aimed at controlling the climate?

 Do you think that celebrities, politicians and other high profile individuals who want you to reduce your carbon footprint will lead by example?

Are they?

Continue to burn incandescent light bulbs, turn up the A/C in summer, stay warm in winter and drive your SUV without guilt for CO2 is a harmless trace gas essential to life on earth. It is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer. Demand the deregulation and privatization of electricity from your governments as your protection against central control of the electrical grid and your life. Let the market decide.

CO2 - life or death?

Presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, has come out against human induced global warming. He was asked: Where do you get your science that the burning of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming?

The burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 is a GHG (green house gas). The theory is that GHGs trap heat so that the earth warms more than it otherwise would and that the continued use of fossil fuels will eventually cook us. Indeed, this would not be a desirable outcome from the viewpoint of homo sapiens. More GHGs; more heat. Do you see a problem with this scenario?
The problem is with the word trap. Is there a limit to how much heat can be trapped?
What is the origin of the heat?
The sun.
Incoming solar radiation heats the atmosphere and warms the surface of the earth. The earth radiates infrared(IR) radiation (heat) into the atmosphere. GHGs absorb certain wavelengths of this IR. Does it make sense that there is only so much IR at these wavelengths that can be absorbed? Does it make sense then that there is a limit to how much GHGs can warm the atmosphere? By the way, water vapor, the most important GHG, absorbs some of the same wavelengths as does CO2. There is overlap and since there is far more H2O in the atmosphere than there is CO2, CO2 is a more minor player in the absorption phenomenon.
Once the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere reaches the quantity required to absorb all of the radiation coming from the earth then any additional amount contributes nothing to warming. The earth can only warm so much given the incident amount of radiation impinging on the earth from the sun. This amount can vary depending on the variability of the output of the sun and on the interception of this solar radiation by the earth's magnetic field, aerosols in the earth's atmosphere or cloud cover. Changes in the sun's magnetic field can also affect the incidence of cosmic rays entering the earth's atmosphere which can materially affect how much solar energy reaches the earth's surface. So how much GHG is required to absorb all the available radiation emanating from the earth?
Would it surprise you to learn that there have been times in the earth's past when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 10 times that of today (390ppm) and that that occurred in the middle of an ICE age in the late Ordovician period of geological history about 450 million years ago?

We are here.
The earth did not become an inferno.
Would it surprise you to learn that it has been WARMER in the earth's past than it is now? Examples: Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Holocene War Period.
We are here
The earth did not become an inferno.
Would it surprise you to learn that droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and snowstorms have all occurred in the past when CO2 was 300ppm as well as when CO2 concentration is at the current level of 390ppm? They are not unprecedented and CO2 had nothing to do with it.
Significant snow storms occurred in Christchurch, New Zealand in 1862, 1895, 1896, 1901, 1918, 1945, 1992, 2006, and 2011 during both low and higher CO2 concentrations. CO2 had naught to do with them.

At plantsneedco2.org they like to spread the good news that CO2 is green and that plants consider it part of their food supply. As they say:

More CO2 means:

• More Plant Growth
• Plants need less water
• More food per acre
• More robust habitats and ecosystems

We know, contrary to GHG theory, that the earth has been cooling over the last dozen years or so and that atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising.
A recent study suggests that CO2 climate sensitivity has been overestimated.
We know, contrary to GHG theory, that sea level has been on the decline for a number of years now.
We know, contrary to GHG theory, that wildfires, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes have all been on the decrease in the US while CO2 has been rising. Can we conclude that elevated levels of CO2 has been the provider of these benefits?

It sounds like someone is trying to demonize a molecule without which there would be no life on earth.

These facts suggest that the power of CO2 to influence the temperature of the earth has been overestimated. The earth has survived worse than our paltry contribution to GHGs over the last 60 or 70 years. We are not near a tipping point because there is none.
There is a limit to the warming of the earth that is dictated by the maximum solar irradiance that the earth receives. Much daytime heat is dissipated at night.
An interesting side note to this discussion is the fact that Venus whose atmosphere is 96% CO2 is very hot at the surface while Mars whose atmosphere is 95% CO2 is not. Why the difference? If CO2 is such a powerful GHG why isn't Mars in a runaway GH state? In fact, why is Venus very hot, by earth standards, but remains at a stable temperature? What is the deciding factor? What explains the temperature difference between Mars and Venus whose atmospheres are both composed of at least 950,000ppm CO2?
It must be something other than the presence of CO2 alone.
Do we need anything else to conclude that CO2 does not drive climate??
CO2 has been exonerated.

Hurricanes and Climate Change

Apparently, hurricanes have nothing to do with the increasing amount of CO2 that humans are depositing in the atmosphere. Hurricane trends are down all over the world. See here.

Here is data for Australia

Here is data for China

Here is data from the USA

A failed prediction of  a theory deserves explanation or the theory must be reformulated to take into account real world data. Hurricane predictions are made by Global Climate Models (GCMs). If the predictions of the model do not correspond to reality then the model is not reality based. It is defective and cannot be relied upon in its current form to give us any information on which we should act.

Can we conclude that the models attribute far too much importance to the presence of CO2 in our atmosphere? Can we conclude that increasing CO2 not only is good for plant growth but has the added benefit of hurricane amelioration?

Will these graphs be discussed in Durban?

Doubtful. Why? Because  they throw cold water on human induced global warming. First, we have the latest data from the JAXA Ibuku satellite study that shows that the worst carbon emitters are in the developing world not in the industrialized world. Oops. Has the industrialized world managed to outsource enough of its manufacturing jobs to the developing world and has now saddled them with the dubious distinction of being the global warming generators. Or maybe the carbon sinks in the developed countries are absorbing more CO2 than was previously realized. I guess the Maldives are out of luck in their quest for a transfer of funds from rich countries because of their carbon 'pollution' because they aren't. Not to mention that sea level is on the decline.

Next, we have the latest (October 2011) satellite data that show areas of warming and cooling throughout the world whether it be land, ocean or air. Oops!

So much for 'unequivocal' global warming. And all this is happening while CO2 continues to increase in our atmosphere.

Perhaps the New Zealand government can control its zeal to control the emissions of its livestock and not impose the hated 'fart' tax on its farmers. The silliness that is global warming continues to provide the greatest comedy show on earth. It is laughable that such a tax can even be proposed let alone discussed with a straight face. But those convinced of the reality of global warming are cool to any contrary evidence. They do not like to have their confirmation bias pointed out to them. They will latch onto any idea, true or false, in order to make a tax grab as long as they can claim it is in the 'public' interest. It is government revenue that is sacred not the truth.

Here is a review of IPCC 1995 predictions to date. Abject failure.

Tell me again why we should be reorganizing our economies to put less CO2 into the atmosphere? Tell me again why we should listen to an authority whose failed predictions indicate that they do not know whereof they speak? CAGW is done like dinner. Defund the IPCC and their annual parties in exotic places of the world.

What would it take to convince you that human induced global warming (climate change) is false?

Poor Texas

Are things getting worse in Texas?

Take a look.

Always a funny read...

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Roundup

If you follow the climate change issue with any regularity you will find a humorous take on the week's climate change news.

Be sure to visit the sight weekly.

Snowtober as weather extreme

 The early US snowstorm in October 2011 brought this entry on Climate Depot: Early snow in US: global warming blamed in 3, 2, 1... | Climate Depot

They were right. It didn't take long for the MSM to blame the freak October 2011 snowstorm in the NE USA on CO2 and global warming aka, climate change (let's cover all the bases so we can't be wrong).  See it here:

october2011NBC720.mov - YouTube


One would hope that the snickering Brian and Anne will be exposed to this contrary view from meteorologist Joe D'Aleo's  educational lesson on weather extremes here. Warning: some previous climate knowledge required.

Or how about this little tidbit from Steven Goddard at  Real Science.

When will the MSM, aka LSM, learn to do research before disclosing their biases on live TV. Embarrassing but not surprising!

Follow the fall-out from the BEST study mentioned in the video here and here and here and here to link a few.

And rather than Muller you might want to explore Marusek's chronology of  extreme climate events which can be accessed via link on this page. It might cause you to pause and rethink the 'unprecedented' claim of modern warmist alarmists.

From the chronology here is an example of an early low CO2 winter: The winter of 1783-84 was known as the Long Winter in New England in the United States. The first snowfall of the season blanketed the eastern seaboard from New Jersey to Maine on 12-13 November1783. That was before Brian's time so I suppose it never happened. Out of sight, out of mind.
In the United States in the interior of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and in all the New England
states, on the morning of 1 & 2 June 1843, there was a hard killer frost.Gee, global weirding in June or what?
Winter of 1844 / 1845 A.D. In the United States, on 29-30 September 1844, snow fell in the interior of
Pennsylvania, New York and the New England states. Wow, in September no less. The weather really is unpredictable,eh, Brian?

And here is some snow in Australia in their summertime in 2010. Sounds like somebody sucked the CO2 out of the atmosphere over there.

Just found this. Looks like snow cover in Autumn has been on the increase. Is trapped heat causing snow?

And one more:

Nov 03, 2011

Late October Northeast Snowstorm Is Not Unprecedented By Art Horn, Meteorologist

 

Check it out here.

Bad weather happens and it happens no matter what the current concentration of CO2  in our atmosphere. Low CO2 snow storms and high CO2 snow storms look pretty much the same. There is no need to curtail CO2 emissions because it has naught to do with crazy weather. Drive your SUV without guilt.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

So said climate expert Dr. David Viner

According to Al Gore, snow is a thing of the past 

Record snow cover in 2010-2011.

Autumn snow cover up 50% over last 15 years.

IPCC is wrong again.

Disconnect. CO2 shows a mind of its own and is not doing the job it has been programmed to do.

Guess we'll have to wait a while longer for year round  shorts weather in Thunder Bay. Pity.