Model Release Form - University Of Miami: Fill & Download for Free

This is almost a reality but there are obstacles, as you can read below; draw your own conclusions on this.For over 5 years a small community near Key West Florida had been working with a British company- Oxitec - to get Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a trial release of genetically modified mosquitoes to combat disease.The principle being that ‘modified’ males, which do not bite or transmit disease, are released to mate with wild females. The offspring of these mating die before becoming adults. With repeated releases of sufficient numbers of these self-limiting males, there is a reduction in the wild population to below the level needed to transmit disease according to models of disease transmission.Field tests in Piracicaba, Brazil, Panama and the Cayman Islands have resulted in an 82 percent decline to the mosquito population over an eight-month period.In August 2017, the FDA gave its approval for the trial, saying it found no potential adverse impact on human health or the environment.However the local resident’s objections, where the Florida trial was to be carried out, were voted on through a non-binding referendum in November 2016. In Monroe County as a whole, 58% of the residents were in favour of release but in the specific trial target area, Keyhaven, 65% were against. Needless to say, the trials have not proceeded here.As an aside here, these events have been somewhat overshadowed this year by the catastrophic floods and hurricanes that have severely effected these areas.These objections were probably accurately characterized by Arthur Caplan, the founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine when he said: “The public fears genetic engineering. Nearly all politicians don’t understand it. It is ignorance, distrust, and fear of the unknown, fear of prior efforts to use biology to combat pests which went sour.”Whilst, possibly ironically, these same residents are happy to allow the somewhat toxic approach of continual indiscriminate dumping of pesticides such as Naled, notably banned throughout Europe, from aircraft over hundreds of square miles.So the science is available but the public trust has yet to be won over, at least in the originally designated trial area for USA.Finally, and in answer to the second part of your question as to whether it would cause imbalances on the ecosystem - possibly (and this is the fear of many) but, again, I would point to the many imbalances already credited to pesticide spraying of which there are many. It is well documented that Naled targets pollinators - so, the devil or the deep blue sea?Or, as Dr. Naresh Kumar, an environmental scientist at the University of Miami, put it, whilst he agrees “that massive exposure to naled is harmful, he says virtually all pesticides are a form of poison and can never be truly administered safely. He adds that exposure to pesticides such as naled could cause lower birth weights in infants.”Watch this space.

Of course not. First, there is no Global Warming. One (1) degree total rise in temperature spread out over 140 years does not Global Warming make... that translated to less than 0.007 degrees per year which is NOTHING !Further, Co2 emissions, both natural and human, are not having a climate effect. They are wholly beneficial to the photosynthesis chemical process converting radiant energy to chemical. Co2 is heavier than air and does not hang in the atmosphere for long.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!The lack of correlation between Co2 and temperature is strong evidence of no effect. Co2 always lags temperature therefore it is not possible to be causative of temperature.Co2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITLong history from Antarctic Ice Core of Co2 lagging Temperature.Dr. Patrick Moore has presented research showing the C02 in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial and that we are starved at only 400 ppm for photosynthesis. We need more as in the past the average has been > 1000 ppm.The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (C02): Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist‬There is too minute amount of either natural Co2 or our emissions in the atmosphere to validate the so called warming effect using the fake greenhouse metaphor. Our emissions are near zero and no more than a ‘pinch of salt’ in the huge atmosphere.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.Think about it this is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 %.Climate change happens over thousands of years, but man-mad Co2 is imperceptible in the earth’s temperatures. Earth’s temperature rises in the past have always preceded a rise in CO2 by a few hundred years according to peer reviewed research, not as Al Gore would have you believe, caused it.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.”In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.39 to 0.42. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .Co2 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.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., minuteepidermal 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.Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.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.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !In my view the answer to this question is very relevant to upsetting the scare mongering from Al Gore and other alarmists about unprecedented global warming. The facts are there are too few Co2 molecules to have any effect on the earth’s climate. The amount of Co2 today at just 400 ppm [parts per million.] Co2 today pales in comparison with the past when there was more than 5000 ppm which is > 10 X as much! [ Remember with every breath out we exhale > 35,000 ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere.]The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.GREENHOUSE GASES COMPOSITIONHere is a key graph of all Greenhouse gases that shows detailed percentages of where the source of C02 in the atmosphere and human emissions are miniscule at only 0.117%. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from other natural sources it is foolish to think humans make any difference. Even the most costly efforts to limit human Co2 emissions if they succeeded would have a very small-- undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil...It may be a little hard to picture just how minute the fossil fuel emissions across the globe are. Please take 3 minutes to view this helpful Australian Rice video that helped Australia’s public decide to axe the futile carbon tax.AXE THE TAX AUSTRALIA THE RICE VIDEO 85880 32 CO2 1 HUMAN CO2It is hard to imagine, but essential to realize they have no effect on the climate, just how small the Co2 emissions from fossil fuels are. Co2 so small drawn to scale it is invisible.Even adjusting for unproven heat retention make little difference in the composition of Co2 in the atmosphere.Ibid, page 75"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net...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.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.Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax - Dr. Ivar Giaever- ‪Published on 12 Jul 2015- ‪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.--Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDhttp://www.shtfplan.com/headline..Comment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li...July 16, 2017 at 9:20 amDr. S. Fred SingerDr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world’s most respected and widely published experts on climate. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL, where he was principal investigator for the Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project (1989-94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981-86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).Dr. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report.Dr. Singer is author, coauthor, or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (ICS Press, 1992), Hot Talk Cold Science – Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, 1997, 1999), Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto (Hoover Institution, 2000), Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, revised ed. 2008), and three volumes in the NIPCC series: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (Heartland Institute, 2008), Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Heartland Institute, 2009), and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (Heartland Institute, 2011).Dr. Singer is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He was elected to the AAAS Council and served on the Committee on Council Affairs, and as Section Secretary. In 1997, NASA presented Dr. Singer with a commendation and cash award “for important contributions to space research.”Dr. Singer has given hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, State University of New York-Stony Brook, University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, University of Connecticut, University of Colorado, Imperial College-London, Copenhagen University, University of Rome, and Tel Aviv University. He has also given invited seminars at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Max Planck Institute for Extra-Terrestrial Physics in Munich, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and (2010) in New Delhi and Singapore.Dr. Singer has been a pioneer in many ways. At the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, he participated in the first experiments using high-altitude research rockets, measuring the energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays and the distribution of stratospheric ozone; he is generally credited with the discovery of the equatorial electrojet current flowing in the ionosphere. In academic science during the 1950s, he published the first studies on subatomic particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field – radiation belts, later discovered by James Van Allen.Dr. Singer was the first to make the correct calculations for using atomic clocks in orbit, contributing to the verification of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and now essential in the GPS system of satellite navigation. He also designed satellites and instrumentation for remote sensing of the atmosphere and received a White House Presidential Commendation for this work.In 1971, Dr. Singer calculated the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas. He also predicted that methane, once reaching the stratosphere, would transform into water vapor, which could then deplete stratospheric ozone. A few years later, methane levels were indeed found to be rising, and the increase in stratospheric water vapor was confirmed in 1995.Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate,"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."-S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginiahttps://www.nas.org/articles/Est...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 5thAssessment 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 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.

Between 1964 and 1970, Eric Clapton played on a number of very good records:The Yardbirds, Five Live Yardbirds. This 1964 live album of the blues-based beat group that Clapton was lead guitarist of, is one of the most raucous and energetic things he ever did, and his playing is one of the reasons why that’s so. He was only 18 at the time (he turned 19 ten days after it was recorded) but he plays his ass off. It’s hardly sophisticated music. It’s the sound of five very young men, full of piss and hormones and imported blues records and, probably, cheap English beer, but it’s the main document of why Clapton was so revered as a very young player. Around this time he made a number of studio recordings with them which did very little action, but ‘Got to Hurry’ and ‘I Ain’t Got You’ feature guitar playing from him which was, by 1964 English standards, savage. (Indeed, even if we compare it to late 50s blues guitar by people like Otis Rush and Guitar Slim, it stands up very well.) But Clapton wasn’t happy in the Yardbirds, and they weren’t happy with him.John Mayall, Blues Breakers with Eric Clapton. Clapton left the Yardbirds in 1965 after they recorded their first hit, ‘For Your Love’, either because he was disgusted with their commercial approach or because he didn’t have the imagination to find a way of working within it—you decide. Anyway, he joined the band of English bluesman John Mayall, and commenced a period of serious practice and listening, aided by Mayall’s immense collection of blues and jazz records. In March-April 1966 the band recorded this, their only studio album with Clapton on guitar. Clapton’s playing is truly ‘outstanding’, both in the sense that he’s playing really well and eloquently, and that, with the exception of the great Alan Skidmore on tenor sax, he’s an embarrassingly better musician than anyone else on the album. I can’t really listen to this anymore, because Mayall’s reedy voice and the rather lumpen rhythm section of John McVie (later of Fleetwood Mac) and Hughie Flint aren’t very good. But Clapton’s aggressive tone, dexterity and inventiveness are still miles ahead of those of peers. It’s like listening to a great diva singing before a nondescript orchestra. In the Yardbirds Clapton played with lots of attack and a fairly brittle, twangy tone, but he was learning to slow down and use feedback and amplification to help himself play long sustained tones, making himself sound (as one critic put it) like some strange woodwind instrument operated by strings.John Mayall and Eric Clapton, ‘Lonely Years’. This 1966 single was recorded by Mayall and Clapton alone on vocals/harmonica and guitar, and it sounds like it was recorded in a toilet. It’s also one of the best things they ever did, with Mayall sounding like a real blues singer and Clapton holding down a filthy groove all by himself. Their guitar/harp duet is rough and ready, but really enjoyable.Cream, Fresh Cream. By the time Blues Breakers came out, Clapton had already left John Mayall and formed Cream with Scottish bass player Jack Bruce and London drummer Ginger Baker, who’d played with each other in the largely instrumental band the Graham Bond Organisation and—ominously—not got on with each other. But they wanted to play with the best, so Baker invited Clapton into the band, and Cream played its first gig in July 1966. Bruce was, as they say, a triple threat: besides being a virtuoso bass player he was a great singer and fine, inventive songwriter, but Cream had a lack of songs, so from their earliest gigs they would fill out performances with long improvisations. This became their trademark, and was one of their most important contributions to rock. Fresh Cream is a somewhat bumpy record, a mixture of Bruce’s quirky, heavy rock songs and blues numbers, but it has a stark, chiaroscuro quality, partly because there were only three of them. Clapton plays exceptional solos on ‘Sweet Wine’ and cover versions of Skip James’s ‘I’m So Glad’ and Willie Dixon’s ‘Spoonful’, showing that he’s developing a vocabulary less rooted in blues and more in melodic exploration.Cream, Disraeli Gears. Cream’s second album from 1967 represented the first time Clapton had managed to stay in a band for more than one album, and also showed the influence of Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix had formed his own trio (the Jimi Hendrix Experience) partly under the influence of Cream, and Clapton, along with all the other British musicians of his generation, had been blown away by Hendrix’s musicianship, showmanship and charisma. Disraeli Gears is also swirling with LSD, from Martin Sharp’s cover to tracks like the dreamy and ominous ‘Dance the Night Away’, ‘SWLABR’ and ‘Tales of Brave Ulysses’, on which Clapton has clearly bought a wah-wah pedal and can only think of one thing to do with it. But if any one album shows the splendid Technicolor weirdness of 1967-vintage psychedelic heavy rock, it’s this. Clapton does very fine work on Bruce’s sorrowful ‘We’re Going Wrong’, and there are amusingly Beatle-ish moments on the cheerfully nonsensical shuffle ‘Take It Back’ and Cockney singalong ‘Mother’s Lament’. But the standout track is the anthemic, extraordinary (and remarkably concise) ‘Sunshine of Your Love’, which somehow takes a lover’s promise to be home soon and makes it sound like a threat.Cream, Wheels of Fire. The band’s third album, from 1968, shows off its Janus-faced quality. In the studio, Cream made carefully constructed rock songs with meticulous production and arrangements, but live, they played endless blues-flavoured jams. The first disc of Wheels of Fire features more of Bruce’s inventive songwriting: ‘White Room’ and ‘Deserted Cities of the Heart’ are as good as anything the band ever did. Ginger Baker’s songwriting, which had previously been the embarrassing low point of Cream albums, dramatically improved: ‘Those Were the Days’ is a great song. Clapton’s main contribution was an almost note-for-note cover of Albert King’s ‘Born Under A Bad Sign’, which is at least as good as the original. …Aaaaand then there’s the live stuff. ‘Crossroads’ is the high point, a blistering gallop through Robert Johnson’s blues song, featuring two of the greatest, most intense solos Clapton ever played, and one of his best vocal performances. ‘Traintime’, a vocal & harp/drum duet between Bruce and Baker, is thrilling. But you may find yourself listening to the endless modal noodling in ‘Spoonful’, and Baker’s relentless battering of his drums in ‘Toad’, and wondering how much more of your life this is going to consume.Before and during the making of Wheels of Fire, Cream began to fall apart. Bruce and Baker really disliked each other, and Clapton (who was the youngest member) was getting sick of having to mediate between them. The band was getting louder and louder, and having to play endless solos night after night was taking its toll.The Beatles, ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’, from The Beatles. In September 1968, the Beatles were recording the White Album and, like Cream, were not getting along. Clapton had become a close friend of the Beatles’ lead guitarist George Harrison, and during a car ride to London, Harrison asked Clapton to play lead guitar on his song ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’. Clapton declined, feeling that ‘nobody plays on Beatle records’, but then was persuaded. Clapton’s presence in the studio had the effect of making the other Beatles more friendly and cooperative, and the result was one of their best-loved tracks. I’m not crazy about it myself, but Beatles fans generally love its combination of Harrisonian sincerity and Claptonian fire.Cream, Goodbye. Before Wheels of Fire had even been released, Cream announced that they were splitting up. Their last album (1969) was like a skinny remake of the previous one, with a couple of turgid live tracks and a side of studio numbers, but one of them, ‘Badge’, co-written by Clapton and Harrison, was a bittersweet gem and one of his best songs.By 1969, Clapton’s personal life was in turmoil: basically, he’d fallen in love with his best friend’s wife.It was traumatic enough for a blues musician to find himself the main character in a real-life country song, but it didn’t help that the friend in question was George Harrison and the wife in question was Patti Harrison, née Boyd, a celebrated model and the inspiration for Harrison’s finest song, ‘Something’.After the breakup of Cream, Clapton flailed around a bit and formed a short-lived supergroup, Blind Faith, with Baker, Steve Winwood of Traffic and Ric Grech of Family, but it folded after six months and one so-so album. Around this time, he started playing with Blind Faith’s support band Delaney & Bonnie, and became fascinated with the music of The Band, in particular their focus on songwriting. Delaney and Bonnie encouraged his songwriting ambitions, and he used many of their musicians on his first proper solo album, Eric Clapton.But then, wanting to make an album but also wanting to tell himself that he was a member of a proper band, he formed a new band with a name designed to distract people from who the band consisted of, and made the finest album of his career.Derek and the Dominos, Layla and other Assorted Love Songs. This album, recorded between August and October 1970 in Miami, is the one album I would recommend to anyone who doesn’t get the point of Clapton. It’s the only album I know of where he really got outside of himself and says something which strikes the listener—well, this listener, anyway—as having the force of a universal truth about people, rather than an individual truth about Clapton. The album has the feel of having been recorded by a bunch of drunk guys having a really good time, which is more or less what the sessions were actually like, except that Clapton was in the full flush of unrequited love for Patti Harrison, and he howls it out on songs like ‘Tell the Truth’, ‘Layla’ itself, and a blistering cover version of Billy Myles’ ‘Have You Ever Loved A Woman’, a song which was basically telling the story of his life at that point. It helps that Clapton met Duane Allman and got him to join the sessions; Allman’s ecstatic slide is all over the album, especially on a heartrending cover of Jimi Hendrix’s ‘Little Wing’, reinventing Hendrix’s quiet, tender song as a soaring epic. (Contrary to legend, they didn’t record it as a posthumous tribute to Hendrix: he was still alive when they made it, but he died unexpectedly only days later.) The Dominoes’ version of ‘Little Wing’ thereby acquired an entirely unintended elegiac quality. Layla is a sprawling mess of an album, and also a close, harrowing portrait of a man unhappily in love. Clapton never recorded anything this intense ever again.And, well…that’s it, as far as I’m concerned.Clapton’s obsession with Patti Harrison stumbled on her unwillingness to leave Harrison for him. He got himself and a girlfriend into heroin, and spent 1971–73 basically in seclusion, smoking (rather than injecting) the stuff and doing little, although Harrison (who, amazingly, still considered himself Clapton’s best friend) dragged him out for the Concert for Bangladesh, and Pete Townshend organised a tribute concert that was meant to be getting Clapton back out in the public eye.He finally got off heroin in 1974 and Patti Harrison eventually left her husband for him. (George still didn’t get seriously pissed off about this.)He released his first post-heroin solo album, 461 Ocean Boulevard, in 1974. He also started to drink heavily. In a 1976 concert in Birmingham, a very drunk Clapton made some heavily racist remarks onstage. He later shrugged this off, or tried to, but some arrogance or bloody-mindedness (or maybe just inner racism) has prevented him from ever saying straight out Look, I was wrong, I was pissed, I was stupid and I was ignorant, and I’m sorry. As late as 2004, he was continuing to defend himself, rather than apologise.That would be bad enough, but as someone who, before he was ever aware of the 1976 incident, doggedly listened to everything Clapton did from 1964 to 1990 or so, I can personally testify that his 70s and 80s output is, for the most part, one vast snooze: the sound of a man who no longer felt like he needed to be challenged, but who played music because he didn’t know what else to do.He eventually managed to kick the booze as well, and for the last couple of decades he’s presented himself as a sort of sharp-dressed, clean-living CEO of The Blues: a maker of music for middle-aged men to listen to in expensive cars. The kind of guy who makes a guest appearance on Top Gear, which indeed he did do, in 2013.Little he’s done has been, in my view, worth listening to. Even the very sad death of his young son in 1991 provoked him to write a song which, although heartfelt, was hardly up there with the power and intensity of his best work. But it sold a lot of copies.Cream reunited briefly in 2005 and played some enjoyable concerts. But Bruce died in 2014, so that won’t happen again.Just to show that there are times, etc., here’s an evident bootleg of him onstage from some point in the 70s or 80s (the video says 1978, but this is disputed). Something had clearly got into him, that night.And in 2002, Clapton acted as musical director for Harrison’s tribute concert. In that capacity, he delivered an elegy for his friend which was genuinely mournful, even when delivered through the overstuffed guitar-fest that was the celebrity band:Clapton’s second solo here, with its weeping ninths and outrageous bends and rhythmic restlessness, is I think fully up there with his best work.So, Clapton is, or can be, an eloquent musician. And if he’d died in 1971, I think he’d be remembered as a truly great one.It’s just that he wants to be a different sort of musician than that, and he seldom bothers, in my opinion, to put himself in a situation which will prod him to stop being such a boring old fart and make him really say something.In the meantime, he has his money and his cars and his guns (he likes to hunt) and his family; he married again in 2002. There’s not a lot in his life that would tend to give him the blues, these days.