Academic Year 2014 2015 Term 1 Mon 22 Sep 2014: Fill & Download for Free

They deny the shoddy, pseudo-science of the alarmists. Science research is overwhelmingly on the side of natural variability, not the radical unproven demonizing of trace amounts of vital Co2 plant food. The alarmist seem anti-intellectual when the foolishly claim the science is settled and refuse to debate or study more.The foundation of recent alarmism about potential Co2 global warming is built on sand lacking intellectual rigour pushed forward by left wing political group think from the likes of Al Gore. The low level of debate from the alarmists is embarrassing to intellectuals like Camille Paglia.I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target.Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.The real deniers are the alarmists who deny Mother Nature and natural variability. Piles of peer reviewed papers show the NEGLECTED SUN not trace amounts of vital plant food drives the climate. Denying natural variability and taking too short a view explains why 100% of alarmism fails to happen. Sea levels are not rising much, Arctic ice is expanding, Islands are rising not sinking, winters are not moderate without snow, etc. TEMPERATURES ARE FALLING AROUND THE GLOBE. IT IS GETTING COLDER NOT WARMER!20 Years On, Jurassic Park Author Michael Crichton is Still Right about Global WarmingEric Worrall / June 8, 20204/11/02 Michael Crichton ’64, HMS ’69 speaks on “The Media and Medicine” at Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA on Thursday, April 11, 2002. By Jon Chase photo/Harvard News Office – This file has been extracted from another file: MichaelCrichton.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, LinkGuest essay by Eric WorrallEveryone has heard of Jurassic Park. What is less well known is author Michael Crichton, who passed in 2008, was also a staunch critic of politicised science, and an articulate and effective global warming skeptic, who was just getting into his stride when he was sadly struck down at age 66 by cancer.TWENTY YEARS ON, ALIENS STILL CAUSE GLOBAL WARMINGOver the years, the Jurassic Park creator observed, science has drifted from its foundation as an objective search for truth toward political power gamesJONATHAN BARTLETT JUNE 7, 2020In 2003, author and filmmaker Michael Crichton (1942–2008), best known for Jurassic Park, made a now-famous speech at Caltech, titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” The title was humorous but the content was serious. He was not addressing some strange theory of global warming; he was warning about the politicization of science.In 2003, author and filmmaker Michael Crichton (1942–2008), best known for Jurassic Park, made a now-famous speech at Caltech, titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” The title was humorous but the content was serious. He was not addressing some strange theory of global warming; he was warning about the politicization of science.Crichton (left, in 2002, courtesy Jon Chase, Harvard CC 3.0), noted that, over the years, science has drifted away from its foundation as an objective search for truth and given itself over to political power games. The first time that he witnessed that was with the famous Drake Equation, used to turn SETI speculations about space aliens into a science. The Drake equation was a series of probabilities multiplied together to estimate the probability that space aliens may exist who can communicate with us. Of course, none of the terms is known or even estimable, and they may not be expressible as probabilities. However, SETI was given a pass because it suited the scientific zeitgeist of the day. It probably helped capture public attention for science.The same thing happened during discussions of the effects of nuclear war. Paper after paper made nonsense claims about such a war’s effects, including nuclear winter. But no one wanted to intervene, fearing that skepticism might be portrayed as a defense of nuclear war. Thus, bad science, even from top-tier journals, was reported as fact by the scientific community.Crichton noted that some of these papers were actually part of an orchestrated media campaign:The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.MICHAEL CRICHTON, “ALIENS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING” AT CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CA (JANUARY 17, 2003)He summed it all up by saying, “This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.” Painful, but true.…Read more: Twenty Years on, Aliens Still Cause Global WarmingThe transcript of Crichton’s “Aliens Cause Global Warming” speech is available here. The Aliens speech is Crichton’s description of the chain of Noble Cause Corruption which led to the ongoing silence of the academic establishment in the face of scientifically indefensible climate alarmism.A video of Michael Crichton in action;Crichton was popular on university campuses, because of his talent as a speaker, his scientific credibility as a qualified scientist, the immense popularity of his works of fiction, including Jurassic Park, Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, and the blockbuster medical TV series ER, and his unyielding support for reason and the scientific method.Crichton had always planned on becoming a writer and began his studies at Harvard College in 1960.[6] During his undergraduate study in literature, he conducted an experiment to expose a professor who he believed was giving him abnormally low marks and criticizing his literary style.[9]:4 Informing another professor of his suspicions,[10] Crichton submitted an essay by George Orwell under his own name. The paper was returned by his unwitting professor with a mark of “B−”.[11] He later said, “Now Orwell was a wonderful writer, and if a B-minus was all he could get, I thought I’d better drop English as my major.”[8] His differences with the English department led Crichton to switch his undergraduate concentration. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964[12] and was initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society.[12] He received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.[12] Crichton later enrolled at Harvard Medical School.[9][page needed] By this time, he had become exceptionally tall, by his own account, approximately 6 feet 9 inches (2.06 m) tall as of 1997.[13][14] Crichton later said “about two weeks into medical school I realized I hated it. This isn’t unusual since everyone hates medical school – even happy, practicing physicians.”[15]Source: WikipediaIf Crichton had lived, there is no doubt he would have continued to be a powerful voice for reason, and a fearless critic of climate alarmism and government policy based on scientifically unfounded claims.Another way to answer the question is to ask why do so many scientists who once followed alarmism now reject it? No better example than Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt of Germany. In a recent interview he explained his change of mind.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC© Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindetProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Here's the interview:NTZ: You were once a believer in the man-made CO2 climate disaster. What changed your mind?FV: I was Environmental Senator of Hamburg until 1998 and had had absolutely no doubts about the AGW hypothesis because global temperatures indeed had been running parallel with CO2 emissions. My first doubts over the IPCC's science arose after the dramatic errors of the 2007 4th Assessment Report came to light. On German public television PIK Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by the year 2035. Then as a CEO of Shell Repower Systems, and later RWE Innogy, where I was responsible for the development of renewable energies and discovered that natural factors were impacting our climate. We saw that the wind strength in Northwest Europe had been in decline year after year. Yet, climate scientists had told us just the opposite was supposed to occur, i.e. that wind strength would increase. So I looked at the literature in detail and was able to find there was a relationship with the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose 60-year cycle had entered a weak phase. I wrote articles about this in leading German dailies, and I was immediately branded as a "climate denier" by Stefan Rahmstorf. His reaction led me to look even deeper into the literature. In the end it was Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf who turned me into a skeptic.NTZ: Your climate science critical book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) was released early last year in Germany. It remained on the Spiegel bestseller list for 3 weeks. Has it changed the discussion in Germany? Were you surprised by the public's reaction?FV: The leftist, liberal media labeled me an "eco-reactionary" who represented obsolete positions. That was to be expected. What truly surprised me the most was the harsh reaction from German climate scientists who were not even willing to discuss the topics addressed in the book. And the longer our book remained on the bestseller list, and the longer the warming stop became, the more our adversaries' tactics ran aground. First they ignored us and then they tried to isolate us through personal defamation. Die kalte Sonne became the symbol of resistance against a politically indoctrinated science which denied natural processes and spread fear in order to promote a particular energy policy - one that threatened the prosperity and growth of the German industrial base. So to me it was a sort of an accolade when former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt invited me to a personal audience to find out more about Die kalte Sonne. Now I'm permitted to quote him: "Lüning's and Vahrenholt's assertions are plausible". The [former] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson invited me to London and encouraged me to publish the book in English. Now it is appearing this week as The Neglected Sun. It's the Die kalte Sonne in English, and it's been updated.NTZ: CO2 is supposed to be trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet global atmospheric temperatures haven't risen in 200 months (over 16 years). Where has all the "trapped heat" gone? Some leading scientists are frustrated that they cannot find it. What do you think is happening?FV: It's now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What's false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn't been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth's radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a "missing heat" cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no "missing heat". Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we've been hearing speculation about the deep ocean. On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world's leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there's a problem with climate science?FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That's why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years - never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to "prove" the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They'll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?FV: Certainly. That's what's so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don't fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany's media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?FV: This process is fully under way. But it's going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.Worse, it's a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world's photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we "sell" surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It's been a run-away train and it's too expensive. We are putting Germany's industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn't any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media - even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there's been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it's man's fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That's why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC's tunnel vision is growing. But let's not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt is a German scientist, environmentalist, politician and industrialist. With his initial Doctorate in chemistry, Prof Vahrenholt has researched at the Max Planck Institute for Carbon Research at Mulheim. A former Senator and Deputy Environmental Minister for Hamburg, he has served on the Sustainable Advisory Board successively for Chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Angela Merkel.I have learned by much be reading his text in detail.This book written by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONThis comment on the book is worth reading.Randy A. Stadt5.0 out of 5 starsWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.There has been no global warming for the past 7000 years of the Holocene only the seesaw cycles of natural variability.The fish hook is our time while temperatures have been rising they remain on the downward trend line.A number of referenced peer reviewed papers refute the Co2 greenhouse effect where alarmist claim trace amounts of gas somehow create a blanket of the earth like the glass panels of a greenhouse. The claim also is the special properties of Co2 cause a back radiation. Wrong on two counts - physically Co2 is too minute to form a blanket and the physics of back radiation defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.At 412 ppm carbon dioxide is an invisible, non-toxic, trace gas in the atmosphere primarily known for its role as the essential plant food for photosynthesis. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a sliver at 3.6% and human emissions from fossil fuels in the atmosphere is roughly 0.040% of the total atmosphere. Not even half of 0.10% ???Consider this fact: With CO2 levels at a “High” 400 ppmv, there are 2499 molecules of air (78%N2, 21% O2, 1% argon) plus an average of 1% water vapor and 1 molecule of CO2. At “Normal” 300 ppmv there is 0.75 molecules of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.Photosynthesis consumes carbon dioxide to create carbohydratesCo2 IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE ON OUR PLANETCo2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Nature's smallest factory: The Calvin cycle - Cathy SymingtonPhotosynthesis Process Step by StepBy definition, photosynthesis is a process by which photoautotrophs convert the energy derived from the Sun into usable chemical energy. Light, water, chlorophyll, and carbon dioxide are the basic requirements for this process.Step 1Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minute epidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.Step 2Water enters the leaves, primarily through the roots. These roots are especially designed to draw the ground water and transport it to the leaves through the stem.Step 3As sunlight falls on the leaf surface, the chlorophyll, i.e., the green pigment present in the plant leaf, traps the energy in it. Interestingly, the green color of the leaf is also attributed to presence of chlorophyll.Step 4Then hydrogen and oxygen are produced by converting water using the energy derived from the Sun. Hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide in order to make food for the plant, while oxygen is released through the stomata. Similarly, even algae and bacteria use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to prepare food, while oxygen is let out as a waste product.The electrons from the chlorophyll molecules and protons from the water molecules facilitate chemical reactions in the cell. These reactions produce ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which provides energy for cellular reactions, and NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide diphosphate), essential in plant metabolism.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minute epidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.While we take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide to produce energy, plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen to produce energy.Photosynthesis has several benefits, not just for the photoautotrophs, but also for humans and animals. The chemical energy stored in plants is transferred to animals and humans when they consume plant matter. It also helps in maintaining a normal level of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Almost all the oxygen present in the atmosphere can be attributed to this process, which also means that respiration and photosynthesis go together.https://biologywise.com/process-...The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.A PINCH OF SALTA much more accurate metaphor for Co2 is the well known “a pinch of salt makes everything taste better.” The minute amount of salt like Co2 has a chemical reaction with food making it more sugary and less bitter. But like Co2 a pinch of salt is too small to warm the food or the planet.It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph.The yellow sphere represents 1 to 2,500 molecules which is the amount of CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. TRY TO APPLY THIS MINUTE AMOUNT OF CO2 TO THE NEXT GRAPH OF A GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH. Not possible to even imagine.THIS IS THE FAKE GREENHOUSE OF ALARMISM WITH NO PANELS COVERED WITH MINUTE AMOUNTS OF CO2.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United StatesAvailable online 23 September 2016.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.STATE OF THE CLIMATE REPORT - CLIMATISMCONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.CLIMATISM : 2019 State Of The Climate ReportThis 97% meme gets far too much attention when the real issue is why have leaders like Al Gore lied about the support of the 2000 scientists employed in the IPCC Working Group failure to ‘detect’ evidence of human caused warming.From a Charlie Rose interview (4 November 2009):[2]AL GORE: And even though it has gone through this exhaustive 20-year peer review process with the 3,000 best scientists in the world unanimously endorsing it, every national academy of sciences in a developed country on this planet endorsing it, still, based on some radio talk show host or some odd orthogonal argument...[Note: I was the Alternate Canadian Delegate to the UN ILO meetings in Geneva in 1978 and witnessed first hand the artful and misleading machinations of this organization.]THE UN IPCC IS BUSTEDThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC – is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world.UN CONSIDERED DISMISSING THE IPCC SCIENCE BODY!Did you know the UN almost dismissed the IPCC because their ‘best scientists’ as Gore says did not find human caused global warming after extensive research in 1990? After 5 years of research and discussion those 3000 best scientist concluded as follows -In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The story of the failure of the IPCC science to support the UN General Assembly is reported in detail by Bernie Lewin in the above recent book.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise. (less)17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate ChangeBy Kenneth Richard on 8. June 2017“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017Allmendinger, 2017The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”Blaauw, 2017“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”Nikolov and Zeller, 2017“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”Huang et al., 2017“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”Viterito, 2017“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”Hertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”Song, Wang & Tang, 2016A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect“In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. … [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”Manheimer, 2016“[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. … [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”Mikhailovich et al., 2016About the Influence of the Giant Planets onLong-Term Evolution of Global Temperature“The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”Vares et al., 2016… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … GeomagneticActivity … Causal Source for Global Warming“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”Easterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”Chemke et al., 2016The Thermodynamic Effect of AtmosphericMass on Early Earth’s TemperatureObservations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]Haine, 2016“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”Ellis and Palmer, 2016Conclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”Evans, 2016“The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2 response to the CO2 forcing.”Gervais, 2016Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged By 60-year CycleConclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/...Climate Gate – Global Warming The Myth: CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our TimePosted on December 12, 2009 by mcauleysworldThe following article by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best., was published, after peer review, in March 2007. Dr. Jaworski was one of the first to point out the loss of scientific integrity in the field of global warming research.CO2 – The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our TimeBy: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, M.D., Ph. D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best.ERI Science March 16, 2007Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, one of our planets first climate change specialists, is a multidisciplinary scientist, now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-58, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. From 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers: in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published many papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. Two of his papers on climate appear on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine. www.21stcenturysciencetech.com. Dr Jaworski is one of the world’s preeminent scholars in the field of ice core analysis.IntroductionOn Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style to a crowd of politicians and media, accompanied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report, which was not released until May 2007.In the words of the IPCC, the delay was needed so that, “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages was allowed to be in conflict with what the politicians (and bureaucrats) said beforehand in the summary! (In fact several of the original findings and conclusions made by the panel of investigating scientists were changed prior to the publication of the actual report – conclusions that were not in “lockstep” with the desired political conclusions were deleted from the report).This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001. ……The Four Basic IPCC LiesThe four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are:1).Carbon dioxide, an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human activities and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeding the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years.2. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C.Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic political decisions.The obvious beneficial effects of warming are downplayed. (Beneficial effects include larger crop yields, reducing the likelyhood of continued global famine).Except for the pronouncements concerning CO2, all these points are garlanded with qualifications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely” and “unequivocal.”In fact, to the contrary, all 4 of these points are incorrect.The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice.This statement is a half-truth.It is true that CO2 is “an important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.”Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea, human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%. (12 hundredth’s of 1%).Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.The Truth About Ice CoresBecause carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us dwell on them for a while.The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite (see review in Jaworowski et al. 1992b).Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. (Jaworowski et al. 1992b). These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) even during the six former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true, as shown below).It was never experimentally demonstrated that ice core records reliably represent the original atmospheric composition. Other proxies demonstrated that many millions of years ago CO2 levels in the atmosphere reached, at various times, 377, 450, and even 3,500 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001), and that during the past 10,000 years these levels were, as a rule, higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al 1999, Wagner et al. 2002).The results of these last studies prove false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 ppmv to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. (Global warming alarmist claim this false level of atmospheric level of CO2 – it is the base level from which they claim an alarming increase has occurred).The results of the cited pre-1985 studies are strongly supported by direct CO2 measurements, carried out in the pre-industrial and 20th-Century atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004).However, geologic evidence suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.” Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from which our bodies and all living creatures are built (Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a dangerous “pollutant.”The Hockey Stick CurvesOn the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled by combining distorted proxy ice core data and direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmophere.These measurements were created by illegitimately mixing proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.“…. falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports, including the “Summary for Policymakers” issued in 2007….”These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data an arbitrary rejection of the high readings from “old ice” and an arbritary rejection of low readings from “young ice”, simply because the data did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. (Yes, the study “excluded all data” that did not fit the preconceived and desired outcome – the data which tended to disprove the desired outcome was excluded from the report).Dr. Jaworski’s compelling report can be read in its entirety (with supporting graphs and references) here:http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/p...How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?How does the air get hot? How does the air warm at all? Just consider this – 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen which are both transparent to infrared radiation, both incoming and outgoing. Is this a scientific fact, agreed by both Warmists and Skeptics? Yes, it is.So how does the air get warm? How is it that the weather forecasters routinely broadcast the temperature in a given place and also project the highest temperature likely and the lowest also?So we are all agreed on two things. The first is that 99% of air is transparent to infrared radiation and second that there is a given but moving temperature in any certain location – say London or Paris, Singapore or Jakarta. But what is causing the warming? What actually effects the warming?There are three means of heat transference, namely radiation, conduction, and convection. We have already ruled out radiation since 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to this radiation.So, is it only the greenhouse gases that get hot? I don’t think that anybody considers that to be a possibility. It would be totally ridiculous to say that 1% of the air is hot and the 99% is cold.So if radiation is ruled out, then the only real possibility left is conduction. It cannot be convection since that is a means of cooling. Sure, there are what are called convection heaters, but is not that a misnomer?When one examines them more closely one finds that the air is heated by an electrical coil that is hot, so, in fact, the air is heated by conduction and convection occurs by itself or with the help of a fan.In the same way, a radiator does radiate a little when hot water passes through it, but the air is actually heated by touching, by conduction and radiation plays a minor part.Holding one’s hand close to a hot radiator and then touching the same radiator easily prove this. At three inches away the heat is barely felt.But the heat transferred to the hand when it is laid on the radiator is instant. To be absolutely certain of this, try putting a hand on a kettle of boiling water!In this way, we can see that the mantra of Hans Schreuder ‘Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere’ is correct. The atmosphere does not heat the Earth – on the contrary, the atmosphere is a giant cooling system.The radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and collides with the mass of the Earth, be it rocks, sands, prairies, forests, lakes, rivers and oceans.Over the whole surface of the Earth, there is this great unending heat exchange, by conduction. The heat everywhere is carried upwards and away by convection.As the molecules of the air are heated they burst out of their cage and the molecules spread out in a giant fan, getting farther and farther apart with altitude.Only in this way can we understand why, as we ascend a hill or a mountain, the air gets progressively colder, which is even more noticeable in aviation. As the air gets thinner, that is to say as the molecules get farther and farther apart, so the temperature drops.Yet it is true that some of the molecules of the greenhouse gases may indeed be hot. The Warmists argue that these hot molecules effectively warm other molecules and even radiate back down towards the surface of the Earth.This is where a great error occurs, even amongst certain physicists. They have overlooked one thing, namely that between the molecules at altitude there is ‘nothing’, there is space, and there is a vacuum.I have quite often written ‘One cannot heat “nothing” only for the built-in grammar check in Word to rule out what it senses as a double negative. But this concept is essential.The radiation from the Sun passes through outer space precisely because it is a vacuum. A vacuum cannot get hot for there is ‘nothing’ to get hot. Only ‘something’ like ‘mass’ can get hot and have a temperature.So we see that a spaceship, which does have mass, has to take enormous pains to keep cool when suspended in this vacuum.The Warmists argue that the average mean surface temperature has risen by 0.8º Celsius since 1900 or 0.8 degrees in over 100 years.They may well be right although they admit that they have to make thousands of calculations from weather stations, ships at sea, radiosonde balloons and satellites in space to arrive at their conclusions.Above all, we must remember that an ‘average’ temperature is not a temperature at all. If it were, then the Moon, with its extremes of temperature, would be a habitable place!Furthermore, they argue that this same average temperature would be some 10s of degrees less without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They might indeed make a case with water vapor impeding the exit of heat, as indeed it does.But what is interesting is that they show and acknowledge that the Sun is the main source of energy, of heat and light.When we examine these arguments seriously we can see they have got a lot right. The Earth and the oceans do indeed absorb solar energy.The intense heat in the dry Sahara does dissipate quickly as the Sun sets, while in Jakarta where the air is full of moisture the temperature declines slowly.However, slowly or quickly, they are conceding that the atmosphere is a great travellator for carrying heat away to outer space.The atmosphere does not warm the Earth – only the radiation from the Sun does that. And it is the surface of the Earth that both warms and cools the atmosphere.The Warmists also make a bizarre claim that the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) radiate heat back to the Earths surface.A molecule is tiny, not visible to the naked eye. Just how far can a molecule radiate? Not very far, since it is governed by the Inverse Square Law.So indeed a molecule of carbon dioxide may indeed absorb infrared radiation, but neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor generates heat.It is important to realize that the Warmists do not claim that the greenhouse gases generate heat, only that these greenhouse gases prevent the escape of heat thus making the lower atmosphere warmer.So the science is agreed by both sides, that is to say, the data. The trouble is that while it is true that water vapor may well inhibit the exit of heat from the surface, it can clearly be shown that clouds break up and scatter incoming infrared radiation.So while nitrogen and oxygen are transparent, the greenhouse gases are opaque and therefore both inhibit the entry and the exit of infrared radiation. Ergo water vapor can clearly be observed as a coolant.When a cloud on a fine sunny day passes across the face of the Sun it cools. When raindrops fall the atmosphere cools. When ocean water evaporates, the sea may warm but the atmosphere above is cooled.The Warmist scientists are not so stupid as to claim that that the greenhouse gases ‘generate’ heat, but their claim effectively is that these same gases prevent ‘heat loss’ – called the greenhouse effect.But greenhouse or ordinary brick-built house is all the same – heat always seeks an equilibrium, which is actually never achieved. In my own house, since I hate the cold, I may have the central heating on for hours, until the temperature has risen to a comfortable degree.What is the difference? My boiler is generating heat. The moment it clocks off at 11 PM the heat disperses. Nothing can prevent this dispersion. The heat will pass through walls, through windows under doors seeking equilibrium with the outside temperature.Why then is equilibrium never achieved? For the very simple reason that the outside air masses are also seeking equilibrium and awaiting the radiation from the Sun.All sorts of other factors kick in. There are winds, there are weather fronts where one mass of warmer air may collide with a colder mass, there is the Coriolis effect, and there are rain and frost. So there is a continuous fight for equilibrium, which is never achieved.We live in a world of flux. Those who attempt to arrive at a global temperature are striving in vain. And those who attempt to blame mankind for upsetting the balance of nature by burning fossil fuels ignore at their peril the enormous cosmic influences, which affect the tides, the monsoons, and even the movements of the continents.Surely the Earth is warming and cooling, surely the climates everywhere are indeed changing and evolving, for in spite of wars and technological advances, the cosmic forces demand that mankind makes progress at an ever increasing speed.To return to my initial question: What heats the air? once we realize that only conduction can possibly heat the air, then all the talk of the greenhouse gases capturing the radiation from the Earth falls into place.So we may pose the question to ourselves? Is there any such thing as anthropological (man-made) global warming? Surprise, surprise!Yes, there is some man-made global warming, by means of the prevention of heat loss, through the greenhouse gases.But since the greenhouse gases are together in sum only 1% of the atmosphere, then only half of 1% can be attributed to mankind, as night follows day.And since nature produces 96% of carbon dioxide and only 4% is produced by man, the effect of mankind on the warming of the Earth can be reduced by a further 96%.So the Warmists may indeed claim 0.0048% of the warming and the Luke Warmers may agree, but dare I say it, the Slayers of the Sky Dragon are the only ones to have understood the whole picture.The quantities I have mentioned are so trifling as to be laughable. In any case, evaporation alone would negate any theoretical warming.How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?NEW PAPER: SOLAR IMPACT ON CLIMATE GREATER THAN THOUGHTDate: 11/03/19Press Release, Global Warming Policy FoundationA new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that the solar influence on climate is is much larger than is generally recognised.The report, by Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute, outlines some of the remarkable correlations between solar activity and past climate changes. It also shows that the output of the Sun alone – the so-called total solar irradiance – cannot explain them.“Changes in total solar irradiance are actually quite small”, says Professor Svensmark. “They would have to be nearly 10 times larger to explain how the oceans warm and cool over the 11-year solar cycle.”New research suggests that other mechanisms can amplify the effect of solar activity. The New report reviews the possible candidates, concluding that the most likely of these is the effects of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation. This idea is plausible in theory and has received substantial empirical support in recent years.However, Professor Svensmark says that insufficient attention is being paid to this research area:“Galactic cosmic rays seem to be very important drivers of the Earth’s climate. But they are mostly being ignored at the moment because they are seen as distracting from conventional global warming research. Science needs to do better if we want to make progress in understanding the actual impact of natural factors of climate change.”Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)The benefits of higher CO2 levels have been known to science for over a century. They are so great that in 1920 Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 “the precious air fertilizer.” From this photo, included with their article, it is easy to see why:That fact surely came as no surprise to the great Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who is sometimes considered the father of modern climatology. Fourteen years earlier he had correctly predicted that rising CO2 levels and the resultant climate change would be beneficial:The founder of the CO2 greenhouse theory thought it would be a good thing if we produced more CO2 as it would improve the climatic conditions in the northern latitudes. See:The source for the above is the very scholarly work by Daniel Yergin:Vincent Sauve

Yes, human emissions of carbon dioxide are innocent of any role or effect on the climate. I have just posted 15 reference books that are well researched by many scientists that explain why the public have been duped by the UN pseudo-science with an agenda to use the climate for an alternative economic agenda not the environment. Here is a candid admission of the deceit by an leading UN scientist.Climate corruption has been the result with fudged data, wildly exaggerated claims and outright lies. I urge you to do your own research and rely on visual observations as much a graphs and data. The best starting place is with -Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax1,710,019 viewsI recommend these 15 books because the authors rely on solid scientific research to elucidate the reality of climate change and explain the fact there is no human made climate crisis. Mother Nature controls the temperatures with solar radiation and nothing we can do about it. Be resilient to the reality that it is a fable that climate is ever stable.NEW - ‘STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER' 'All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control' Hyped global warming sustains itself with unsustainable government debt.James G Matkin Published Comment USA TODAYNew research demolishes 'GREENHOUSE THEORY which explains the many failed climate predictions of the IPCC " Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System, " the paper explains. " This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth, " the study continues.The study helps explain the total failure of the UNIPCC climate alarmist predictions. They were based on pseudo-science as Nobel Laureate Dr. Iver Griever held.‪‪Early winters are bad weather, but not global warming bad weather. Fewest sunspots in 2017 for decades and this is a sign of cooler weather. .‬‪Winter storm slams Deep South, sets sights on New EnglandAs the numbers show there is too little Co2 cover the earth and without enclosed panels there is no greenhouse effect.Climate of Corruption : Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming HoaxMelting glaciers, suffering polar bears, rising oceans—these are just a few of the climate change crisis myths debunked by noted aerospace expert Larry Bell in this explosive new book. With meticulous research, Bell deflates these and other climate misconceptions with perceptive analysis, humor, and the most recent scientific data. Written for the laymen, yet in-depth enough for the specialist, this book digs deep into the natural and political aspects of the climate change debate, answering fundamental questions that reveal the all-too-human origins of “scientific” inquiry. Why and how are some of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions cashing in on the debate? Who stand to benefit most by promoting public climate change alarmism? What true political and financial purposes are served by the vilification of carbon dioxide? How do climate deceptions promote grossly exaggerated claims for non-fossil alternative energy capacities and advance blatant global wealth redistribution goals? With its devastating portrayal of scientific and government establishments run amok, this book is an invaluable addition to the tremendously popular literature attacking the scientific status quo. Climate of Corruption will bring welcome relief to all those who are fed up with climate crisis insanity.By now International climate is generally interesting to transfer the resources from developed to developing nations. Or as soon quote from the poor in rich countries to the rich and poor countries. And quotationThe truth is that there is no evidence for any significant human impact on global climate, and that there is nothing in a practical sense we can do to affect global climate. And is Larry Bell points out, a somewhat warmer climate with increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial overall to earths inhabitants, especially to those in developing nations who depend on agriculture for a living. Climate of Corruption brings a breath of fresh, cool air to the overheated climate debater.S. Fred Singer former director of US National Weather Service light service professor M or M or test at University of Virginia and Cole author of Unstoppable Global Warming“GLOBAL WARMING CEASED TO BE A SUBJECT OF SICENTIFIC DEBATE YEARS AGO” (Page 10)The authors argue that politicians and others claim far more certainty than is justified by the science. The authors also argue that public policy discussions have abandoned science and resorted to ad hominem attacks.Taken by Storm was one of two runners up for the 2002 Donner Prize for the best book on Canadian public policy.[5]In TAKEN BY STORM – The Trouble science, policy and politics of global warming Essex and McKitrick offer a scientifically sound argumentThat is gangsta Main Street. “They cut through all the obfuscation and and doublespeak that surrounds one of the most complex scientific economic issues of our time”We wrote this book because tired see irrational fears about global warming cause nations and their leaders to rush around how in a panic about a crisis that in all probability does not exist and enact obscenely expensive policies that would not fix anything even if it did. We wrote this book because we got tired of seeing science twisted into a prop for policital ideology.The physical phenomena in climate and weather are among the most complex in nature, and science can say very little about what they will do in the future. Yet a large international policy framework has been built precisely on the assumption that we know what is happening and how to control it. In Take by Storm, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick prove this assumption false, carefully explaining the science of climate change and deconstructing the widespread myth of global warming. They argue that the connection between science and society is disintegrating, and they propose a vital first step toward repairing this relationship.The most harmful untrue claim promoted by all governments in the Paris Climate Accord is that a carbon tax will somehow change the earth’s climate for the better. This is truly scientific nonsense and lacks common sense. Warmer is better not colder as we know from past ice ages. The idea of a stable global climate is a fantasy. It never has been and never will as the major driving forces are solar cycles and ocean currents not fossil fuels. These forces are natural, chaotic and unstoppable. See this research -The consequence for developing countries if they enact these taxes and abide by the Paris carbon reducing targets will be the greatest social reversal in history bringing misery and death to millions living without electricity. Cooking outside is the most harmful environmental issue today and Paris demonizing coal power will leave millions without hope of a more healthy alternative.Compelling, easy-to-read, and written by internationally recognized experts in applied science, this volume destroys the human-caused global warming theory and clears the innocent carbon dioxide molecule of all the heinous crimes it is accused of. Google BooksOriginally published: 2011Authors: Alan Siddons, Hans Shreuder, John O'SullivanEven before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.INTRODUCTIONThe most fundamental assumption in the theory of human CO2 Is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. Problem is that every record of any duration for any period in history of the earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs: temperatures increase precedes CO2. Despite that a massive deception was developed and continues.How does the massive deception of human induced global warming bypasses normally rigorous scientific method why does it continue to survive? Who orchestrated the science of politics? What was the motor?Two major factors explaining how Antrel Jenny global warming rakkas a GW and brackets evil got away with a massive deception. First was explication of fear. The end of the world is coming, there’s only a few years left in the mantra of everyone UN Secretary-General abandoned key move Prince Charles. Second was exploitation of people’s lack of knowledge or understanding sign. Science… Challenge facing anyone trying to cover the exploiters is to bring logic clarity and understanding in the way a majority of people can understand.Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth? A Dialogue with the Authors of Slaying the Sky DragonDr D Weston Allen – meet the author here 10/10/12INTRODUCTIONMy book, The Weather Makers Re-Examined, published in 2011 by Irenic Publications, was a comprehensive and damning critique of Tim Flannery’s alarming best seller which claimed ‘we are The Weather Makers’. I now examine Slaying the Sky Dragon (SSD), a full frontal attack on the greenhouse theory or ‘sky dragon’ by eight authors who refer to themselves as the ‘Slayers’ (p.358) – a term I adopt when referring to them. This 358-page book was published in 2011 by Stairway Press in WA (USA).Defining the sky dragonThe ‘greenhouse theory’ gradually evolved from the seminal work and limited understanding1 of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, John Tyndall in the 1860s, Svante Arrhenius in 1896-1908, Guy Callendar in 1938 to Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. It holds that solar radiation penetrates Earth’s atmosphere to reach the surface which is warmed by the absorption of this electromagnetic energy. The warmed surface emits infrared radiation, and much of this outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is intercepted by trace gases in the atmosphere. Some of this energy is radiated back to Earth’s surface where it is absorbed as thermal energy, thus enhancing solar warming of the surface by day and slowing cooling by night. Since glass on a greenhouse also absorbs and re-radiates infrared (IR) radiation, this atmospheric phenomenon became known as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE), and the trace gases are referred to as ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG).As real greenhouses work primarily by limiting convection, and GHGs by promoting it, SSD refers to them as ‘IR-absorbing gases’. Comprising less than half of one percent (0.5%) of Earth’s atmosphere, these gases are scattered somewhat unevenly through the atmosphere and across the globe. Most of the GHE, particularly over the tropics, is due to water vapour (H2O) and clouds in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere where convective mixing and weather occurs. The tropopause, separating the troposphere from the stratosphere, increases in altitude from about 8km over polar regions to about 17km over the tropics. Above the stratosphere is the cold mesosphere (about 50-85km altitude) and then the very warm thin thermosphere which merges into the exosphere (at 350-800km altitude depending on solar activity). The troposphere contains about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is generally considered to be about 100km above Earth’s surface.Without any IR-absorbing GHGs in the atmosphere, all radiative energy losses balancing solar input would occur at Earth’s surface. According to the laws of radiation, the average temperature at the surface would then be about -180C, nearly 330C colder than the observed mean value. While IR is radiated to space from the surface and atmosphere, the average loss occurs where the temperature is actually -180C at an altitude of around 5km. The more GHGs in the atmosphere the higher this average radiative layer; and since the temperature below it increases by about 6.50C/km (the lapse rate), the higher this layer the higher the temperature at Earth’s surface. This critique will examine only the basics of this very complex subject.Arguments presented in Slaying the Sky DragonThe atmosphere is warmed primarily by conduction, not by radiation; and so the major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) are more likely to warm the trace IR-absorbing gases than visa-versa. The major gases also absorb and emit some IR radiation.The IR-absorbing gases simply scatter IR radiation or otherwise pass any absorbed energy on immediately. These trace gases absorb more solar radiation than OLR and thus cool Earth’s surface; so they are notgreenhouse gases; it is water vapour that makes tropical rainforests cooler than tropical deserts. The glass on a greenhouse works only by limiting convection, not by back-radiation.There is no such thing as back-radiation (no empirical evidence for it) and the postulated recycling of energy between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is a non-physical ‘amplification’.Atmospheric IR radiation cannot affect Earth’s surface temperature because heat cannot flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.Every planet with an atmosphere has a surface temperature higher than predicted; and the surface temperature of such planets rises in direct proportion to atmospheric pressure.The lapse rate (declining temperature with altitude) is determined by gravity and the specific heat of the atmospheric gases, not by their ability to absorb IR radiation.The GHE is supposed to increase lapse rates, but Earth’s lapse rate (6.5K/km) is lower than predicted (9.8K/km), so the greenhouse theory is wrong.Since emissions occur at the TOA at a mean altitude of 5km (where it is -180C), the lapse rate alone explains the fact that Earth’s effective blackbody temperature is 330C below its surface temperature (150C).Based on a surface emissivity of ‘about 0.7’, a GHE is not needed to balance Earth’s energy budget. Averaging Earth’s energy budget over day and night in flat earth climate models is fundamentally flawed,and this invalidates all climate models.Human emissions of CO2 are not a problem since more than 98% is absorbed within a year.Historically, temperature rises precede atmospheric CO2 increases; so global warming produces more CO2, released from warming oceans, never the opposite.Increased geo-nuclear activity is warming the oceans from below and causing global warming. Global temperatures have been going down rapidly.The critical issue is not climate sensitivity (to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels) or how much global warming is due to CO2, because none of it is.There is no empirical evidence for a GHE but ample evidence against it, as provided in SSD and at their website: Principia Scientific International.http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/g...This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONKent Price4.0 out of 5 stars As a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this bookNovember 25, 2014 - Published on Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreIt is no surprise that the sun is the major contributor to the Earth's surface temperature. However, this book details how the sun changes with time, in terms of electromagnetic energy radiated, magnetic field changes, and coronal mass ejections, and the resultant impact on temperature of the Earth. The result is not a simple variation of "total radiated energy" but also complex interactions such as the Sun's magnetic field shielding the Earth from cosmic rays (radiation from outside the solar system) which in turn cause more cloud cover which reflects sunlight and reduces temperatures.The book is organized with a preface plus nine chapters, four of which are written by guest contributors:(1) It's the sun stupid(2) Climate catastrophe deferred - a summary(3) Our temperamental sun (by Nir Shaviv), Solar forcing and 20-th century climate change(4) Brief history of temperature: our climate in the past (by Nicola Scafetta)(5) Has the IPCC really done its homework? (by Henrik Svensmark), cosmic rays and clouds(6) Misunderstood climate amplifiers (by Werner Weber), mining a treasure trove of old solar data(7) A look into the future(8) How climate scientists are attempting to transform society(9) A new energy agenda emergesAs a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this book and heartily recommend it to the general reader, just ignore the extensive footnotes at the end of each chapter (and which would have been better left to the end of the book). A strong point in the book is the extensive graphs (which are very small on the Kindle) and discussion of climate data gathered over time (100's, 1000's, and even 100,000's of years). This data from the past indicates the possible changes in the future. An interesting note is that the current climate models which focus on CO2 and a static sun are not able to fit the actual past data.The governments of the world are rushing to declare a "climate crisis" in order to justify new carbon taxes (which assume that increased CO2 emissions are causing climate changes). The material in this book should help taxpayers understand the major factors that impact climate and the expected rate of temperature change.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTCProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United StatesAvailable online 23 September 2016.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.·An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming· Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field· Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming· Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography· Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions5.0 out of 5 starsVery good, thorough, documented, convincing, does not conjecture beyond the actual evidence. Should be read by allJanuary 13, 2017Comprehensive, thorough, best overview of entire climate debate that I have found. Good introductions and summaries for each chapter, good literature reviews, lots of good graphs and charts to help in understanding things clearly, and the book does not go beyond the evidence. Its premise is stated throughout the book, that "the past is the key to the future" in climate science. Makes a convincing case that the Sun/earth system is the primary driver of climate variation. Clearly documents the "medieval warm period" clearly demonstrates that Co2 follows rather than causes global warming, clearly breaks with the predictive models that point to more warming by predicting a coming cooling phase. The recent "hiatus" may very well be a leveling off of the most recent warming phase.My intention is to rely on the facts by using a vital compendium of science articles published by the prestigious INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS in Australia.The Facts, featuring 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.A major amount of analysis is devoted to the more than 100 emails called CLIMATEGATE. The emails give valuable insight into how the distortion of science for political and monetary gain happened.The classic cheating exposed by the “climate gate emails” is very troubling. Here is a primary confession of fudging from only one of more than 100 email documents -November 16, 1999: email 0942777075That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email which generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science.Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [emphasis added]This email was sent less than two months after the one analysed above. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making an honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past 20 or 40 years as required.That Mann did so would, of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is their silence and collaboration over the following decade in “hiding the decline” which justifies the use of the word “conspiracy”; a conspiracy which will rob the “discipline” of climate science of any credibility, and which will cast suspicion about the integrity of Western science for many decades to come.http://www.lavoisier.com.au/arti...The UN IPCC and the Paris Accord fear that global warming will lead to catastrophe is no more science based than predictions by astrologists. The true story of the science or lack thereof is documented by Bernie Lewin’s book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC – is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world.Yet the surprising story of how it came to prominence is little known. Its origins can be traced back to earlier panics over the effects of supersonic transportation and ozone layer depletion, which taught political elites that science-based scares could be powerful drivers of policy action. It was as an authority fit to deliver the required evidence on climate change that the IPCC came into being.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise.THIS IS WHAT MORE THAN 2000 UN RESEARCHERS FOUNDNO STUDY DETECTED MAN-MADE IMPACT ON ALL OR PART OF OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGE.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The report detailed why and the primary reason was the overpowering reality of natural variability from solar cycles explained all weather and climate changes.“This is an important summary of the truth about Global Warming (aka Climate Change). The hoax is not that the climate is changing or that the globe is in a warming trend. The hoax is not that the increased energy production is causing man-made carbon dioxide levels to rise dramatically in the last 150 years and will continue as a result of improved prosperity in the third world. The hoax is not that water vapor and carbon dioxide are the end product of power plants and automobiles.
No, the hoax is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer. And the biggest hoax is that carbon dioxide is not causing the temperature to increase. Water vapor, which is 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide and regulated by the oceans, is the true and only real greenhouse gas, without which the whole earth would be covered in ice. Thus, all efforts to curb carbon dioxide production are a total waste of capital. “ “ The Two Hoaxes of Climate ChangeBy Tomas de PaulisJanuary 23, 2017 “ The Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide Hoax: Easy to Read Proof That Climate Change Is Normal and Not Man-Made, Alan Fensin - Amazon.comI think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/3557184...New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate SciencePosted on September 20, 2015 by curryja | 561 Commentsby Judith CurryDoubt and Certainty in Climate Science is an important new book that everyone should read. And its free.It is a privilege to make available to you the book Doubt and Certainty in ClimateScience, by Alan Longhurst [link Longhurst print to download the book].The book is 239 pages long, with 606 footnotes/references. The book is well written, technical but without equations – it is easily accessible to anyone with a technical education or who follows the technical climate blogs.In this post I provide a brief overview of the book, biosketch of Alan Longhurst, some additional backstory on the book, and my own comments on the book.PrefaceThe Preface provides some interesting history, here are some excerpts:But more recently, I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale. The research of H.H. Lamb and others on the natural changes of regional and global climate of the Holocene appeared to be no longer of interest, and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was being discussed as if it was reducible to change in a single value that represented global surface temperature.The complex relationship between solar cycles and regional climate states on Earth that was central to classical climatology (and is still being discussed in the peer-­‐reviewed literature) had been replaced with a reductionist assumption concerning radiative balance, and the effective dismissal of any significant solar influence. I found this rejection of an entire body of scientific literature troubling, and looked for a disinterested discussion of the balance between natural and anthropogenic effects, but could not find what I wanted -­‐a book that covered the whole field in an accessible and unprejudiced manner, and that was based solely on the scientific literature: I found text-­‐books on individual topics aplenty, together with a flood of others, either supporting or attacking the standard climate change model, but none that was based wholly on studies certified by peer-­‐review -­‐and whose author was inquisitive rather than opinionated.One thing led to another and this text is the result. My intention has been to examine the scientific literature that both supports – and also contradicts -­‐the standard description of anthropogenic climate change, and its effects on Earth systems: I undertook the task with an open mind concerning the interpretation of the evidence presented in individual research reports, and collectively by those who have been tasked to report to governments on the progress of climate change and to predict future states.Because of my experience, this review leans very heavily on discussion of the role of the oceans in controlling climate states, but I make no apology for this: their role is central and critical and too often ignored.Anthropogenic modification of climate, especially of micro-­‐climates, is undoubtedly occurring but I have been unable to convince myself that the radiative contribution of carbon dioxide can be observed in the data, although modellers have no trouble in demonstrating the effect.Because there will certainly be some who will question my motive in undertaking this task, I assure them that I have been impelled by nothing other than curiosity and have neither sought nor received financial support from any person or organisation in the prepaatio and distribution of this eBookEvidence and logic are lacking in many areas of public debate today on hot-button issues ranging from dietary fat to vaccination.In Science Under Attack, Dr. Alexander shows how science is being abused, sidelined or ignored, making it difficult or impossible for the public to form a reasoned opinion about important issues. Readers will learn why science is becoming more corrupt, and also how it is being abused for political and economic gain, support of activism, or the propping up of religious beliefs.This revised edition of Ralph Alexander’s 2009 book features approximately 50% new or updated material, including an expanded chapter on alternative explanations to CO2 as the main source of global warming. Newly added sections in the 2nd edition cover temperature tampering by the three major custodians of the world’s temperature data, so as to exaggerate the global warming rate; the Climategate scandal; the use of peer review as an alarmist weapon; the neglected influence of the sun on our climate, including the amplification of solar activity by the oceans; heat that is suppposedly hiding in the deep ocean, but can’t be found; and more. The new book also describes how the UN’s IPCC and other alarmists manipulate climate data, discusses the lack of warming for more than a decade – about which alarmists are in denial, and explains the folly of carbon pricing schemes for regulating CO2. Finally, the author reflects on the reasons that so many people erroneously believe recent climate change comes from human activity, when there’s ample evidence to the contrary.Charles4.0 out of 5 starsThe alternative viewpoint of global warmingDecember 20, 2018Professor Plimer is highly qualified to write such a scientific book, and that is borne out by the text. His thesis is that global climate has varied over millenia and will continue to vary, with no influence by humans or our carbon combustion. What I particularly appreciate is that - unlike the IPCC - Professor Plimer cites references that the reader can check for oneself, to back up every claim he makes. He includes graphs from both IPCC and other sources to prove that the IPCC claims are false. Anyone truly interested in the climate change issue should read this book before deciding what is true and what is false.AMAZON -Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively high carbon dioxide. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher than it is today. The non-scientific popular political view is that humans change climate. Do we have reason for concern about possible human-induced climate change? This book’s 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging “creation science,” Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore’s book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific “misrepresentations.” “Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists,” he writes, “who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.”Kenneth FairhurstNovember 18, 2009Humans have been burning fossil fuels and producing CO2 for the past 150 years. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The Earth's mean temperature appears to have risen over this period. "Obviously human produced CO2 has caused the warming" says the IPCC. The science is settled. Q.e.d. Anything that is at variance with this is obviously wrong and must be either ignored or changed."Not so fast" says Ian Plimer. You are ignoring the basic statistical law which states that correlation does not mean causation. I will write a book to show that there is nothing new about climate change. That the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than present at various times of its evolution. That todays CO2 levels are much lower than in the geological past and are not exceptionally high in relationship to the historical past. That there are many things on Earth and in space producing climate variability. That the fears of catastrophic global warming are unfounded, and that previous warm periods have been beneficial to both human society and the biosphere whilst cold periods have been times of great hardship.Has he succeeded in his quest? Absolutely! He presents convincing evidence in favour of all the above propositions, and continually emphasises how woefully inadequate are the global climate models that the IPCC relies on. I do not believe that anybody could read this book with an open mind and not be convinced that there is overwhelming evidence against the possibility of catastrophic AGW.Professor Plimer is Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Adelaide University, and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at Melbourne University. Geology is one of the core disciplines of climate science. Consequently he is well qualified to write on this topic (not something that can be said of some IPCC lead authors, not to mention the authors of various alarmist AGW books and films).The book devotes chapters to climate history, the Earth, the Sun, water, ice and air. Each chapter is preceded by a very useful synopsis of the topics to be covered. The ways, many of them theoretical, in which these systems interact to produce the climate is explored. The stupendous complexity of these interactions is apparent. Much time is spent on the methods that have been used to determine past climates and CO2 levels as well as the ways that the IPCC and some of its lead authors have misinterpreted and misused the data. The final chapter sets forth Plimer's opinions about the politics of global warming, the individuals and groups supporting it out of self interest and the many ill-informed people who have been misled by them. Although this chapter is a bit rambling and could have used some editing, it contains plenty of information that deserves to be common knowledge.The book is constructed around more than 2,300 references. This may account for the choppiness of the writing and the repetition referred to in other reviews. The amount of information is massive, and, unless one has a photographic memory, it will take a great deal of time and effort to get through the book. It is definitely not bedtime reading material, but anyone who puts in the effort will be richly rewarded.And what of the IPCC? They have changed the CO2 atmopheric residence time from the previously accepted 4 to 5 years to a ridiculous 50 to 200 years without a shred of real-world evidence to support it. The role of the sun is downplayed and the variability of the solar constant is grossly underestimated. They admit that clouds and precipitation systems are poorly modelled, and they do not even try to model ENSO. They have spent billions of dollars over 2 decades in trying to find a fingerprint for AGW, and have completely failed to do so. In no way are these the actions of a responsible and impartial body. But then the science is settled isn't it? Professor Plimer details many more examples.The book is not perfect. There are several contradictory statements and one that made me raise my eyebrows. On page 19 he states that one of the IPCC lead authors on epidemiology has written on mercury poisoning from land mines. This is a mis-quote from page 188 of Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers".Also, some of the graphs are not very explanatory.CO2 is a trace gas, 50% heavier than air and highly soluble in water. It is essential to life, and is a fundamental building block of all our foodstuffs. Yet the idea has taken hold that it is a dangerous pollutant which threatens to destroy civilisation and the planet. Because of this, governments are discussing spending trillions of dollars on a futile attempt to control and reduce its atmospheric concentration. This is preposterous. It is pure madness. Future generations will look back at it and shake their heads in amazement.Professor Plimer has done his best to bring sanity to the discussions on climate change. I wholeheartedly recommend his book.The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It’s the story of how and why the polar bear came to be considered 'Threatened' with extinction, and tracks its rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement. The book also tells the story of Crockford’s role in bringing that failure to public attention and the backlash against her that ensued – and why, among all others who have attempted to do so previously, she was uniquely positioned to do so. In general, this is a cautionary tale of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and later obfuscating inconvenient facts.For the first time, you'll see a frank and detailed account of attempts by scientists to conceal population growth as numbers rose from an historical low in the 1960s to the astonishing highs that surely must exist after almost 50 years of protection from overhunting. There is also a blunt account of what truly abundant populations of bears mean for the millions of people who live and work in areas of the Arctic inhabited by polar bears.This book reminded me very much of Moby Dick with its heavy emphasis on both an adventure story and sharing detailed information. Those who prefer one aspect or the other will probably find themselves flipping quickly through the pages that emphasize the other aspect.Popular opinions are almost always wrong. That's the theme of this book. The point is made in the context of describing how global warming, as perceived by the public and media, is different from what scientists are describing. Dr. Crichton argues through his story that we can waste a lot of time and resources on popular delusions, and we need to get our facts right. His appendix I on the dangers of politicized science is something everyone should read. The eugenics example is a chilling one.Spiritual Ecology Versus ScienceEnvironmentalism as Religion by Michael CrichtonOne of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.Michael CrichtonIn 2003 Michael Crichton sent the Ecology industry into a rage by exposing them as a religion. He can get away with it because he has both the science background and enough money not to be silenced by the eco-lobby. In fact environmentalism is as much a fundamentalist' religion as that of Pat Robertson. He is correct about the religious undertones, but it's also a political movement as he points out.In 2008 global warming has fallen off the radar as the presidential election, high energy costs, and the Wall Street meltdown have dominated the news. But this one article seems to have been left out of the discussion. Besides reports of such record cold in Mongolia killing people and livestock, the December 19, 2007 Washington Times reports:"In Buenos Aires (Argentina), snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold...(in 2007) Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia...New Zealand...weather turned so cold..."Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton San Francisco September 15, 2003 (Extract)I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future.I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?...In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things...If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere.As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today.Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true...Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. (Note: oil has fallen to $45 a barrel June 2017) We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. (Ehrlich is still at it in 2017. See There's No Man-Made Global Mass Extinction.)Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on. With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects.He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts....I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.Environmental Religion by Michael CrichtonJames Matkin's answer to Is there a reasonable body of scientific opinion that is sceptical of climate change?