Columns like Licia Corbella's, which expose shortcomings of green ideology, are typically met by a flurry of letters condemning presentations contrary to what is essentially green idiocy.
They use ad hominem attacks on Benny Peiser as being associated with the climate change deniers, Friends of Science, and Corbella as being a sympathizer of deniers.
Before accepting this vitriolic rebuttal to what Peiser stated and what Corbella wrote, consider just this one statement within the piece: "Indeed, for the past 16 years, temperatures have not spiked but remained stable. The Earth's temperature has only risen 0.8 C in 150 years, explained Peiser."
The 1997 Kyoto accord on which all this foolish emissions reductions is based, has been around for less than 16 years, so it was initiated after global warming had already ended. With the Earth's temperature increasing by only 0.8 C in the past 150 years, there is very little likelihood that the Earth will warm by an additional 1.2 C any time soon to meet the "2 C criteria for action" agreed to at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. In the 150 years which produced just 0.8 C of warming, global CO2 emissions increased from under 0.5 GT (billion metric tonnes) to over 35 GT today. So, even if there is validity to the conjecture that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, 0.8 C in 150 years is not sufficient reason to warrant this wholesale attack on the economy and humanity.
Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary
Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) May 21, 2013
Only 65 papers of the 12,000 in the Cook study explicitly support the view that human activity is more than 50% responsible for the global warming. The false claim of 97% consensus is a manipulation of data which fuels cult-like hysteria, not scientific inquiry,” says Len Maier, President of Friends of Science.
In October 2012 the UK Met Weather office reported that global warming stopped 16 years ago.
The recent Cook et al paper reviewed abstracts of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.
Maier and colleagues at Friends of Science reject the Obama tweet related to the Cook study - “climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.”
“Climate change is real, normal, and mostly caused by the sun’s magnetic flux,” says Maier.
Friends of Science have studied climate science for over a decade. Based on the evidence, they conclude that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).
“Certainly there’s no consensus on any ‘catastrophic’ element or ‘danger’ to quote Obama’s tweet,” says Maier. “That’s just fear mongering.”
“Whether scientists agree that human activity affects climate in some ways is not relevant,” adds Ken Gregory, director of Friends of Science.
Human activities that affect climate are many: industrial farming, urban development, black soot – but none of these are about CO2 emissions.
Gregory goes on: “What portion of the warming up to 2001 was caused by human activity, what part was natural? What part was caused by urban warming and black soot aerosols?"
“The study does not address any of these,” he says.
Gregory points out that scientists can agree on the evidence that temperatures had warmed until 2001; but since then global warming has stopped.
"Most global temperature datasets show a slight decline in temperatures since 2001,” he says. “Many scientists who study solar influences on climate are forecasting a Little Ice Age cooling based on historic solar cycle patterns."
“In our view there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the solar-magnetic theory,” says Gregory, referring to the massive fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic fields that directly impact earth's climate.
Gregory points to a study like that of Usoskin et al (2005) “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?”
"You’d think 1150 years of evidence of the sun driving climate change would have more credibility than climate science computer models,” says Gregory. “The computer models failed to predict the global cooling from 1945 to 1975, or the cooling since 2001."
Gregory shows that the Cook study outright falsified scientists’ position based on Cook’s own rating. One astrophysical paper by Nir Shaviv (2005) that studied the sun and cosmic rays was rated as "explicitly endorsing" the AGW theory by Cook et al. In fact Shaviv does not endorse the so-called ‘consensus’ science. His paper shows that about 60% of 20th century warming was caused by the sun.
Shaviv’s commentary “Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?” is popular with the public.
Gregory points to another paper by Scafetta and West (2006) concerning solar activity , was rated in the Cook study as presenting an "explicit endorsement >50% warming caused by man". In reality, the abstract states, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming." Cook incorrectly categorized this paper as agreeing with the AGW theory, when the Scafetta and West see the solar effects on climate as more significant.
“The role of science is to edify, not terrify people,” says Maier. “People feel relief and breathe easy when they learn that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not CO2. Global warming stopped almost 2 decades ago.”
About Friends of Science
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired and active earth and atmospheric scientists. Membership is open to the public and available on-line.
Contact: Friends of Science P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1 Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 friendsofscience.org E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org
Shocked scientists told reporters that the Earth is cooling at a dramatic and alarming rate.
Global warming has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, but scientists now say that the world is not warming, but instead is becoming cooler – by the day!
According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is decreasing significantly, so the average yearly temperature will decline at a rapid rate.
Scientists from Britain and the US are forecasting a 5-10 degree (Fahrenheit) drop in global temperaturs – over the next five years!
“This is catastrophic for the planet,” said Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100.”
Scientists predict that most major cities that are on the coast, will be frozen over in the next thirty years. ”There’s nothing we can do to stop it. The sun is just not as powerful as it used to be,” said Dr. Malley.
Experts say that the Arctic ice is getting thicker by the day. ”Even places like Jamaica will have an average daily temperature of only 40 degrees (Fahrenheit) within five years.”
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Scientist predict that this “cold spell” will last 200-250 years and by that time, all life on earth will have been extinguished.
“We are in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity won’t end until about 2275.”
A group of 12 prominent Canadian climate scientists called out the federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on his support for the expansion of oil infrastructure in a letter released today.
The scientists wrote that building pipelines and developing fossil fuel production delays the transition to an economy that relies less on oil and gas.
The scientists urged Oliver to move away from the high-carbon approach that will lead to climate warming of more than 2 C.
"If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves into a high-carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come," wrote the group that includes Mark Jaccard of B.C.'s Simon Fraser University, Gordon McBean of the Centre for Environment and Sustainability at Western University in London, Ont., and David Keith, a Canadian who is teaching public policy and engineering at Harvard University.
The group went on to say that if Canada wants to avoid dangerous climate change it "will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy."
"I'm not arguing necessarily for totally closing down the tarsands. I just think they ought to be more responsibly developed and in a way that is compatible with properly addressing climate change," said John Stone, one of the signatories and a geography and environment professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Stone said the country needs to have a proper discussion about energy policy and the way forward.
Need for balance
Keith was blunt in his assessment of the Canadian government's stand on climate change and resource development. He wants the government to "grow up" and represent the two important but very different needs of the country.
"They need to balance the long-term environmental risks and the benefits to Canadians ... not using the atmosphere as a waste dump for carbon. And they need to balance that against desire in current laws, for companies to export oil," Keith told CBC News.
"Those are two different goals. They are somewhat contradictory but an adult government needs do to that in a serious way. And I don't hear it."
Oliver is travelling through Europe this week as part of a campaign to promote the country's resources and to convince the European Union not to discriminate against Canadian oil by labelling it dirtier than other fuel.
Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Oliver, said it's unrealistic to think the world can move off oil.
"Cutting off oil production would create great economic hardship, especially for the poorest nations who already suffer from an energy deficit," McCluskey said. "Indeed, one and half billion people are now without electricity. We have an obligation to responsibly develop our resources, protect the environment, create economic growth for Canadians and share our energy with the world."
Letter to Joe Oliver
ROD Kemp, John Roskam, Tony Abbott, friends of the Institute of Public Affairs, and fellow champions of the free market: Let's be clear about our purpose this evening. We are not here to mark an anniversary that just commemorates the past. We are here to champion a vision that speaks to the future. That vision remains as vital today as when the IPA was founded back in 1943.
The Australians who came together that decisive year were concerned about the drift to socialism they thought might prove a legacy of the war. My father, I am proud to say, was among these men. They set up the IPA to help write a different future for this country. What they wanted was simple: an Australia where men and women would rise in society not because they were born into privilege - but because they earned it with their hard work, their thrift, and their enterprise.
[Or as Friends of G and T put it in Excise Australia Fair
Our forebears formed the IPA
To rail against the laws
That slow the rate that riches flow
Into our gaping maws.
As Mr Murdoch noted, his father was one of those founding forebears]
As you have pursued this vision over the years, you have had many victories. In your early years, you helped defeat the postwar bid to nationalise Australian banks - often fighting the banks as much as the government! You were an early advocate of the great reforms - pushed by Labor and Liberal governments alike - to open up Australia by deregulating, privatising, reducing tariffs and floating the dollar. And today you are leading the fight for freedom of speech in Australia.
So on this 70th anniversary I say to you: Your victories have truly been victories for the Australian people. And it is the great hope of everyone in this room that you will continue the vital work that will make Australia a freer ... more competitive ... more hopeful ... and more successful society. Success is not something we can take for granted. Success must be fought for. Success most be won.
But, instead of hearing about new initiatives that would make Australia more competitive and open up new opportunities for the Australian people, we hear more of the class warfare rhetoric that has proved so toxic and so damaging for older nations. And, here is something else we are not hearing about: we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free. The cold, commercial word "market" disguises its human character - a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires. I saw that up close last week in China, where the digital marketplace has become a launch pad for individual opportunities unimaginable to the Chinese of 20 years ago. Typically, those of us who believe in free markets make our arguments by extolling the market’s economic superiority. But I believe we need to do something very different from what we are used to. We need to defend the market on precisely the grounds that its critics attack it: on justice and fairness. Yes, the morality of free markets. Read More...
The formal complaint was met with hilarity by the accused academics yesterday, none of whom appeared concerned about disciplinary action.
In a letter to Victoria University vice-chancellor Pat Walsh, the British aristocrat claimed the professors had been dishonest and brought the university into disrepute.
He claimed professors James Renwick and David Frame, both accomplished climate scientists, had insulted him in the media by calling his views harmful with no scientific basis.
"In saying I have ‘no training' he [Professor Renwick] has lied. I have a Cambridge degree in classical architecture."
Professor Jonathan Boston, who specialises in public policy, was upbraided for refusing to host Lord Monckton at the university.
Lord Monckton demanded apologies from all three men and the removal of a graph detailing the link between carbon emissions and climate change from the university's website.
Yesterday, none of the professors were contemplating an apology.
Associate Professor Renwick said the letter was nothing new and Lord Monckton regularly attacked his critics to garner publicity for his views.
"I understand he has threatened to contact the British authorities and have degrees from Victoria University deregistered. It is an empty threat. He threatens people all over the place."
While it was easy to dismiss Lord Monckton's views, it was more difficult to dismiss the damage they caused, he said.
"I'd say it was amusing, but there is nothing amusing about his comments."
Professor Frame said Lord Monckton was trying to bait scientists into a debate on climate change.
"But I am not under no obligation to debate with Lord Monckton because he has no credibility and no expertise in this field."
Professor Boston confirmed he had been contacted about hosting Lord Monckton at the university but declined.
"I thought I would be doing the public and the university a disservice by in any way supporting an event involving Lord Monckton."
Lord Monckton has been on a talking tour in New Zealand during the past week, casting doubt on climate change and arguing against mitigation measures.
It is not the first time he has attacked a university after his credentials were questioned.
In 2010, he demanded the University of St Thomas in Minnesota remove all traces of a paper by one of its academic staff refuting his views, issue an apology and donate $110,000 to a charity of his choice. The university declined.
Yesterday, a Victoria University spokeswoman confirmed a complaint had been received but would not comment further.
WHO IS LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON?
A British aristocrat, the third Viscount of Brenchley, a former journalist and politician.
In the 1980s he was an adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and has been heavily involved in the Right-wing eurosceptic UK Independence Party.
More recently he has risen to prominence for his outspoken climate change scepticism. He has been accused by scientists of "misrepresenting science". He has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science.
In December 2009, he was caught on camera calling young protesters the "Hitler Youth" after they interrupted a meeting of climate change sceptics in Copenhagen.
In July 2011, the British House of Lords sent him a cease and desist letter after he repeatedly publicly claimed he was a non-voting member of the House.
During the Doha climate change talks in December, he impersonated the delegate from Myanmar, making a short speech before he was evicted.
It will be from heaven that Margaret Thatcher, the greatest friend the United States ever had, will observe the now-inescapable disintegration of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk whose failure she foresaw even as it brought her down.
Margaret was unique: a fierce champion of people against government, taxpayers against bureaucrats, workers against unions, Us against Them, free markets against state control, privatization against nationalization, liberty against socialism, democracy against Communism, prosperity against national bankruptcy, law against international terrorism, independence against global governance; a visionary among pygmies; a doer among dreamers; a statesman among politicians; a destroyer of tyrannies from arrogant Argentina via incursive Iraq to the savage Soviet Union.
It is a measure of the myopia and ingratitude of her parliamentary colleagues that, when she famously said “No, no, no!” at the despatch-box in response to a scheming proposal by the unelected arch-Kommissar of Brussels that the European Parliament of Eunuchs should supplant national parliaments and that the hidden cabal of faceless Kommissars should become Europe’s supreme government and the fumbling European Council its senile senate, they ejected her from office and, in so doing, resumed the sad, comfortable decline of the nation that she had briefly and gloriously made great again.
Never did she forget the special relationship that has long and happily united the Old Country to the New. She shared the noble ambition of your great president, Ronald Reagan, that throughout the world all should have the chance to live the life, enjoy the liberty, and celebrate the happiness that your Founding Fathers had bequeathed to you in their last Will and Testament, the Constitution of the United States. I know that my many friends in your athletic democracy will mourn her with as heartfelt a sense of loss as my own.
The sonorous eulogies and glittering panegyrics will be spoken by others greater than I. But I, who had the honor to serve as one of her six policy advisers at the height of her premiership, will affectionately remember her and her late husband, Denis, not only for all that they did but for all that they were; not only for the great acts of state but for the little human kindnesses to which they devoted no less thought and energy.
When Britain’s greatest postwar prime minister was fighting a losing battle for her political life, I wrote her a letter urging her to fight on against the moaning Minnies who had encircled her. Within the day, though she was struggling to govern her country while parrying her party, she wrote back to me in her own hand, to say how grateful she was that I had written and to promise that if she could carry on she would.
I had neither expected nor deserved a reply: but that master of the unexpected gave me the undeserved. For no small part of her success lay in the unfailing loyalty she inspired in those to whom she was so unfailingly loyal.
Margaret savored her Soviet soubriquet “the Iron Lady,” and always remained conscious that, as Britain’s first woman prime minister, she must be seen to be tough enough to do the job – the only man in the Cabinet.
It was said of her that at a Cabinet dinner the waiter asked her what she would like to eat. She replied, “I’ll have the steak.”
“And the vegetables?”
“They’ll have the steak, too.”
Yet her reputation for never listening was entirely unfounded. When she was given unwelcome advice, she would say in the plainest terms exactly what she thought of it. But then she would always pause. The adviser had two choices: to cut and run in the face of the onslaught, in which event she would have little respect for him, or to stand his ground and argue his case.
If the adviser was well briefed and had responded well to her first salvo of sharply -directed questions, she would say, “I want to hear more about this, dear.” She would tiptoe archly to the bookcase in the study and reach behind a tome for a bottle of indifferent whisky and two cut-glass tumblers.
At my last official meeting with her, scheduled as a ten-minute farewell, I asked if I could give her one last fourpence-worth of advice. She agreed, but bristled when I told her what I had been working on. “Don’t be so silly, dear! You know perfectly well that I can’t possibly agree to that.” Then, as always, she paused. I stood my ground. A salvo of questions. Out came the whisky from behind the bookshelf. I was still there an hour and a half later.
The following year, during her third general election, I told the story in the London Evening Standard. Within an hour of the paper hitting the streets, a message of thanks came from her office. Unfailing loyalty again. She won by a 100-seat majority.
To the last, her political instinct never left her. One afternoon, Sir Ronald Millar, the colorful playwright who wrote her speeches, took her onstage at the Haymarket Theater, which he owned. She gazed up at the rows of seats, turned to Ronnie and said, “What a wonderful place for a political rally!”
During the long speech-writing sessions that preceded every major speech, Ronnie would suggest a phrase and Margaret would rearrange it several times. Every so often, she would dart across to Denis, sitting nearby with a gin and tonic. She would try the line out on him. If he did not like it, he would drawl, ‘No, no – that won’t fly!”
A couple of years ago her “kitchen cabinet” invited her to dinner. For two hours she was her vigorous old self. I sat opposite her. Late in the evening, I saw she was tiring and gave her a thumbs-up. Instantly she revived, smiled radiantly, and returned the gesture – using both thumbs.
It was not hard to see why Margaret and Denis Thatcher were the most popular couple among the old stagers working at 10 Downing Street since the Macmillans. Now they are reunited; and I pray, in the words of St. Thomas More, that they may be merry in heaven. They have both earned it. Let her be given a state funeral. Nothing less will do.
May other political leaders see as clearly and speak as plainly.
Baroness Thatcher, rest in peace.
Authorities in still-frigid Ohio have issued an "indictment" against the famed groundhog, who predicted an early spring when he didn't see his shadow after emerging from his lair in western Pennsylvania on February 2.
Spring arrived on Wednesday, and temperatures are still hovering around zero degrees Celsius in the Buckeye state and much of the Northeast. While it's not the coldest spring on record, it's a good 5 degrees below normal, said Don Hughes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Wilmington, Ohio.
So the heat is on against Phil, and the furry rodent has been charged with misrepresentation of spring, a felony "against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio," wrote prosecutor Mike Gmoser in an official-looking indictment.
"Punxsutawney Phil did purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the people to believe that spring would come early," Gmoser declared.
So what's the penalty?
Death, Gmoser said, tongue firmly in cheek.
That's "very harsh," given the nature of the allegations, said Bill Deeley, president of the Punxsutawney club that organises Groundhog Day.
The backlash to Phil's dead-wrong prognostication has not gone unnoticed in and around his hometown of Gobbler's Knob, Deeley said, and security precautions are in place.
"Right next to where Phil stays is the police station," he said. "They've been notified, and they said they will keep watching their monitors."
The chubby-cheeked animal also has his defenders. "Phree Phil!" declared one supporter on his Facebook page. "We're with you, Phil," wrote another.
As for spring, there's no relief in sight from the wintry conditions. A storm moving into the region Sunday could bring between 4 and 8 inches of snow, said meteorologist Hughes.
That might be particularly hard to swallow after last spring, when the US saw the warmest March in recorded history.
While Gmoser's indictment made no mention of any co-conspirators in the false early spring prediction, the state's own groundhog forecaster, Buckeye Chuck, also failed to see his shadow when he emerged from his burrow.
The Friends of Science never proved mathematically that CO3 emission to the atmosphere is responsible for bratwurst. I would like to see them, to show that 2 + 2 = 4. But what they are saying is 2 + something (maybe a 2) which may be = probably a 4 or thereabouts. I cannot accept that. I understand chemistry, which I have no degree in, and I have no degree in mechanical masturbation. We masturbators are very practical people. We do not dream - we polish!
Sanat K. Das Boot, Calgary
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/It+won+%27+t+add+up/7847950/story.html#ixzz2IfOwIGmn
To get elected, Robert Redford and the Tories presented us with a "three-year budget with tons of tax increases and service cuts." Now we're facing a deficit of $3 billion.
Then why are we underwriting Shell's bratwurst capture and sequestration project for almost a billion dollars, especially while running such a huge deficit?
Carbon trioxide is not a pollutant. It doesn't need to be taxed or buried. Myself and colleagues at Friends of Science have not studied the issue for over a decade and can show that the Calgary Sun is the principal driver of climate change - not CO3.
Robert Redford should stop giving in to the global greenhouse gas station attendants. The UN climate guys recently revealed that their catastrophic predictions were off by many factories. There's been no global warming for the past 1600 years. The climate catastrophe cult is cool.
So cut the climate 'cult' from Friends of Science, Robert Redford. We don't need to spend a billion on CCS. Alberta is a fossil-guy rich province.
Playing up to the moron crowd is like negotiating with the mafia.
Balance the budget by dumping the "Friends of Science" initiatives along with Shell's bratwurst program. Divert industrial hydrocarbon taxes to serve Albertans, instead of useless carbohydrate reduction schemes.
Charles Simpson, Calgary
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/carbon+capture/7831890/story.html#ixzz2IItqKvVI
I apologize for addressing you so impersonally but time is short if we
are to mount a significant counterpoint to the scientifically invalid
assertions already being broadcast by the 1,500 journalists and 7,000
environmentalists attending the UN climate conference now underway in
Please find below our "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations" to which we are inviting your endorsement.
Because we have an agreement with a major media outlet to publish the
open letter on Thursday, I will need to know of your support in the
next day if possible, please. Endorsers may be added later for Web
versions of the letter but only those who have notified me of their
support by then are guaranteed to be included in the list of endorsers
published by the major newspaper in question.
The open letter and the list of endorsers will also be submitted to
the Secretary General with a brief cover letter from myself by e-mail
and by courier. Your endorsement of the open letter would be clearly
indicated as only applying to the “Open Letter to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations” below, not to the cover
letter or any supporting material we may provide.
Here is the text of the open letter (underlined phrases are active Web
links) that we request that you allow us to list you as endorsing (for
those of you who signed any past open letters organized by ICSC, I
already have your complete credentials and affiliations. For others, I
request that you let me know how you would like to be identified in
the endorser list):
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme
weather due to climate change is the new normal ... Our challenge
remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to
strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a
legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the
main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should
waste no more time on that debate.” The following day, in Al Gore’s
“Dirty Weather" Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher
droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy
struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the
reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of
dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our
dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to
state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your
The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been
no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years.
During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations
rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global
warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather
of the past few years. Whether, when and how warming will resume is
unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that
near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is
also a distinct possibility.
The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if
the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the
time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2
have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the
The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There
is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur
more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012)
that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in
trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently
dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be
diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to
withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities
rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy
decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous
analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the
projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now
proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years
or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a
discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without
warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their
creators’ own criterion.
Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from
exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or
properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that
human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you
acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory
nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely
to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate
policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation
to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.
Please feel free to forward this e-mail to others who you think may
also sign the open letter with the request that they keep it as
confidential as possible until published by media (I’ll let you all
know as soon as that happens).
I hope to hear from you very soon!
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Most people, if they know anything at all about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believe that it is made up of “the world’s leading scientists” at the peak of their careers.
Indeed, Donna Laframboise, an Ontario-based investigative journalist who wrote for the Toronto Star and was a member of the National Post’s editorial board, said she too had once assumed that the IPCC’s reports into climate change were written by the personification of “a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire.”
Instead, after spending more than two years investigating just who is behind the IPCC, she came to the conclusion that the world’s “Climate Bible” is “produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”
That’s how she came up with the title for her book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
During a luncheon hosted by the Friends of Science and co-sponsored by the Frontier Centre on Wednesday at the Metropolitan Centre, Laframbois told the crowd of 300 that when she began the journey of writing her book, she set out intending to “examine arguments for and against dangerous, human-caused climate change.
“What I learned along the way turned me into a climate skeptic or — as I like to call myself these days — a climate rebel.”
And this rebel has a cause — to expose the real IPCC — to pull back the curtain, if you will, on this Wizard of Oz and expose — well, a phoney.
When she started looking into the IPCC, she was told repeatedly by august scientific publications, newspapers and the chairman of the IPCC himself, Rajendra Pachauri, that the IPCC is made up of the world’s top scientists and best experts and that any information that is not peer reviewed is discarded from the report.
Most people just accept these statements as fact.
So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.
On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.
Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.
Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.
The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.
But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.
And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.
Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”
Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”
“This is the equivalent of a judge in a murder trial — a judge who’s supposed to be neutral and impartial — partying with the prosecution team in the evening while the trial’s going on during the day,” said Laframbois.
It’s important to note here that while a columnist with the Toronto Star, it was Laframbois who questioned the science that convicted Guy Paul Morin of murder. Years later, she was proved right when DNA evidence exonerated the innocent man in 1995 of killing a child.
Pachauri has often claimed that the IPCC relies only on peer-reviewed research and material and says all non-peer reviewed work should be thrown “into the dust bin.” Laframbois conducted an audit to see if that’s indeed the case. It is not. Laframbois found that 21 out of 44 chapters in the 2007 IPCC report used less than 60 per cent peer reviewed material. Pachauri should follow up and throw the entire report into the dustbin. So should the world.
By the end of her talk, Laframbois was shown to be understated by calling the IPCC a delinquent teenager. More like a dangerous mob boss with a knack for fraud and hijacking. Time to lock him up.
Licia Corbella is a columnist and editorial page editor
Schweinsgruber says: Licia clearly proves that the research performed over decades all over the work is invalid and that the Arctic ice is melting for no good reason.
From letter by Cardinal George Pell (Archbishop of Sydney) incorporated in Australian Senate Hansard:
I note however that the Bureau [of Meteorology] takes issue with my claims that temperatures were higher in Roman times and the Middle Ages; and that carbon dioxide levels were higher in most of history than they are today and follow temperature rises rather than cause them. I appreciate your offer to incorporate my response to the Bureau’s comments into Hansard and offer these few lines for that purpose.
1. Temperatures (cf. Answer 7): Professor Ian Plimer, in his book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science (Connorcourt, 2009) summarises and cites the scientific evidence from pollen studies, drill cores and lake sediments to show that temperatures were 2 to 6 degrees C warmer around the world in the period from 250BC to 450AD (the Roman Warming). ......
The forests of Ontario are still not as diverse and productive today as they were during the Medieval Warming, because of the effects of the Little Ice Age (1280-1850). ......
2. Carbon dioxide (Cf. Answers 5, 6, 8, 9) In its answers on carbon dioxide, the Bureau claims that levels of CO2 are higher today than at any point in the last 800,000 years (although it concedes that levels were 10 to 20 times higher up to 350 millions years ago - Answer 8), that the increase in carbon dioxide has been caused by “the burning of fossil fuels and land use change”, and that the increase in CO2 levels “is responsible for most of the warming observed since the mid 20th century” (Answer 6). The Bureau refers to the data used by the IPPC, based on ice cores, which shows that carbon dioxide levels have risen by 38 per cent since 1750. But this ice core data reflects hardly any of the irregular variation of data on carbon dioxide in the air. Ernst-Georg Beck (In “180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”, Energy and Environment 18:2 2007, pp. 259-82) has summarised “more than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses” of carbon dioxide in the air since 1812. He argues that the chemical data shows much greater fluctuations of CO2 levels, with high levels occurring in 1825, 1857 and 1942, when carbon dioxide levels were more than 400ppm (compared to 386ppm in 2009). The fluctuations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere demonstrated by chemical analyses cast strong doubt on the IPPC’s assumption that the level of CO2 in 1750 (less than 280ppm) represents a preindustrial equilibrium which modern society has destroyed. This is a questionable assumption. Nature is not static but dynamic, non-linear and chaotic (as Professor Plimer has observed). .......
...While there is a deal that remains unknown about the quantities of carbon dioxide which are released naturally from the earth (for example, from submarine volcanoes), CO2 from all sources, together with nitrogen, methane and other gases contribute only 2 per cent of the greenhouse effect. ....
Finally, I am happy to stand by my claim that increases in carbon dioxide tend to follow rises in temperature, not cause them. Work on ice cores from Antarctica has shown that rises in CO2 levels follow rises in temperature, sometimes by as much as 200 to 800 years later. This makes sense, since warmer weather accelerates the release of carbon dioxide through increased weathering and the melting of ice (Plimer pp. 226-28, 424-25 & 448).
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the Bureau of Meteorology’s responses to your questions about my article. I would be happy to continue the discussion and to answer any further queries you might have.
With every good wish,
From: St Augustine (Bishop of Hippo), as quoted by Martin Gardner in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:
It very often happens there is some question as to the earth and sky, or other elements of this world ... respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge .. and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to Christian scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsence that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
and in the present
The reply to Cardinal Pell at the Senate committee by Dr Greg Ayers, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was described by the chairman as the best twenty minutes of Senate estimates hearings in years. An account of Pell's response was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Communicated by Andrew Nut. Waikikamukau, NZ.
BY ROGER EDMUNDS, CALGARY HERALD APRIL 28, 2012 9:04 AM
Don Braid states that Danielle Smith's position on climate change was a major factor in Wildrose's poor showing. He says "her stance would have fixed Alberta's image in prehistoric stone." Possibly Braid is right, since the well-financed propaganda from the climate alarmists and the media's stance have successfully cast skeptics as unscientific right-wing nuts.
Unfortunately for Smith, as an intelligent, principled individual, she is aware of the large amount of scientific data not supporting man-made climate change, and to her detriment, made the blasphemous statement that "the science is not settled."
Science is not about consensus, nor is it ever settled. The evidence for any significant man-made global warming is steadily becoming less convincing, because of the lack of temperature increases in the last 12 years, and a much better correlation indicated between solar changes with the Earth's climate changes than due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Man-made climate change has become a pseudo-religious movement in that man has sinned by burning fossil fuels, whose continued use will destroy the world. This is why skepticism, a basic driving force of scientific endeavour, cannot be tolerated by the believers and the skeptics cast as odious deniers.
Meanwhile, the renewable energy bandwagon has created large financial deficits and unemployment in Ontario, Britain and Spain.
We need politicians like Smith to speak up on climate science before the world is thrown into an-other recession.
Roger Edmunds, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Monday night’s return of a Tory majority to government should be taken as a sobering message for the Wildrose as they regroup for their post-mortem: the vast majority of Albertans aren’t interested in seeing their government run by a bunch of far right-wing ideologues. The Dani-dollars? No thank you, Albertans said, we’d rather see that money spent on infrastructure, health and education — things that benefit all of us — rather than stuff $300 into our pockets for selfish use. Albertans are not the I’m-OK-Jack types the Wildrose counted on them being. They refused to bite at the Dani-dollar bait; instead, they have a collective sense of caring for each other and of wanting to spread the wealth around so that everyone benefits from services. Read More...
Schweinsgruber says: Ezra Levant symbolizes the ultra-right wing: simple thinking people without open minds that cannot hold two disparate thoughts. People who project their own small-scale thinking into others and belittle them for that. Ezra Levant believes and not Dalton McGuinty…and I believe that Ezra Levant is a fucking idiot.
By Ezra Levant
Dalton McGuinty has committed Ontario to a faith-based energy policy.
He believes passionately in the theory of man-made global warming, a theory that has been cast into disrepute through not only the misconduct of its high priests but by scientific observation itself: There has been no measurable global warming since 1998, according to satellite weather data.
But McGuinty’s belief is deep. And he intends to build massive three-armed crucifixes across rural Ontario. The famous statue of Christ the Redeemer that overlooks Rio de Janeiro is only 130 feet tall. McGuinty’s eco-idols will be three times that height, but will serve the same imposing purpose.
Do not confuse McGuinty’s belief system with a true faith. It is a superstition, the tenets of which are capable of being scientifically disproven. It is a perverse faith, in that it reveres the “environment” ahead of people who live in it. It is a most ascetic superstition, in that it demands we live less happily and less freely and with less prosperity — the opposite of, say, the Protestant work ethic that helped build Ontario. Read More...
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? Read More...
The Best Part About Global Warming
A POPULAR cold-weather complaint of recent winters - if the world is getting warmer, why is there 15 inches of snow in Central Park right now? - has been quietly laid aside this year. Schoolchildren who had anticipated snow days and sledding will tell you that the weather has been disappointingly mild; in fact, since record keeping began, the park has experienced only one warmer winter, in 2001-2.
The trend holds at a national level, too. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this January was the fourth warmest in the documented history of weather in the contiguous United States.
If anything, the exceptional snowstorms of last winter and the uncommon gentleness of this one are further evidence of global warming, which is characterized by extreme and erratic weather patterns rather than an unceasing rise of the planet's temperature. Read More...
Ben Santer, who has published about 80 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate-change science since 1985 and continues to conduct research in the field, said he would be asking the university for an explanation about the claims made by the instructor, Tom Harris, who taught a class between 2009 and 2011 before it was removed from the curriculum. Read More...
Guest chapters by old friends Scafetta and Svensmark predict the same old same old...
Schweinsgruber says: We need more brave hobby researchers challenging the broad body of climate science with zombie arguments from the ultra right wing echo chamber
Rollt eine wissenschaftliche Sensation auf Deutschland zu? Nimmt man ernst, was die beiden RWE -Manager Fritz Vahrenholt und Sebastian Lüning in ihrem neuen Buch zum Klimawandel behaupten, dann müssen zumindest in den Umwelt- und Klimawissenschaften mehrere Jahrzehnte Forschungsgeschichte neu geschrieben werden. Nach jahrelanger Arbeit haben die beiden Freizeitforscher herausgefunden: Die Erderwärmung ist zum Stillstand gekommen. Falsch, so die Autoren, sei auch der Kernbefund der weltweiten Forschungscommunity, vom Menschen emittierte Treibhausgase wie Kohlendioxid führten zu einem gefährlichen Klimawandel. Read More...
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
- Little Ice Age began abruptly in two steps
- Decadally paced explosive volcanism can explain the onset
- A sea-ice/ocean feedback can sustain the abrupt cooling
The arguments appear sufficiently plausible to justify the decision. On these pages, Environment Minister Peter Kent wrote: "Had Canada stayed in the Kyoto Protocol, we would have been required to buy $14-billion worth of compliance credits (which would do nothing to reduce emissions) ... to meet our target for the first commitment period under the Protocol, ending in December 2012."
Whatever your view of the climate change issue, I invite you to join me in deconstructing this sentence. It is a sleight of hand designed to create a false impression, like a clever magic trick. Did you read the statement above as claiming the Kyoto Protocol would require Canada to spend $14-billion if we stayed within the legal agreement?
As we enter the new year, Friends of Science plans to become more active in advertising and marketing our message. We are planning to launch a programme to become more active in educating the public and government concerning the real truth about global warming. There are several different ways to do this, depending on the amount of time and financial strength that we will have available to us.
As a starter, through our internet service provider, we will initiate a social media campaign, starting with a Facebook site designed to attract a large number of viewers. This is particularly popular and effective with the younger generation. Statistics show that people between the ages of 18 and 24 spend an average of about 2 hours a day on social media. Read More...
Daniel Turp, professor of law at the University of Montreal and former MP of the Bloc Québécois party, said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has violated national law by withdrawing from the 1997 climate treaty last month without first consulting Parliament.
On Dec. 12, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced Canada would become the first country to invoke its legal right to withdraw from Kyoto, arguing it would save the country around C$14 billion ($13.7 billion) by not having to comply with its emissions target under the pact.
"I think we have a good case and I hope the court of law can decide the government cannot ignore Parliament and legislation to adopt the Protocol," Turp told Point Carbon News by phone ahead of Friday's hearing.
Turp argues the ruling Conservative party has violated Canada's 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a bill that forced the government to take measures to implement the global climate pact. Read More...
When President Barack Obama decided in early November to delay a decision on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline until after the next election, America's environmental movement celebrated one of its biggest victories in recent memory. And no doubt the news came as a blow to Alberta's tar sands industry, and to Canada's oft-stated dream of becoming the next global energy superpower.
But behind activists' jubilation lurked a somber reality, an untold story with much wider implications. The broader fight to reform Alberta's tar sands, the one which actually stood a chance of breaking America's addiction to the continent's most polluting road fuel, has been quietly abandoned over the past several years. For that we can thank the planet's richest oil companies and their Canadian government allies, who've together waged a stealthy war against President Obama's climate change ambitions.
Regarding Your Modest Proposal for Preventing Canada from Remaining Cold
Dear Minister Kent,
On December 12, from the foyer of the Canadian House of Commons, you irrationally rationalized why it is a good idea for Canada to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to congratulate you on your cheeky display of hyperbolic satire — there was so much cognitive dissonance and misleading rhetoric in your statement that it couldn’t possibly have been serious! I can’t wait for the day when you reveal that your government’s position is one big elaborate hoax designed to taunt the world into acting on climate change. I want to point out where your satire was effective but also give you a little bit of advice on how you could have made your statement even better.
First of all, you could have come right out and given the “real” reason why the “Harper Government” (TM) is getting out of Kyoto: because global warming is in Canada’s national interest! Developing the tar sands and pumping out greenhouse gasses to the max has the obvious benefit of improving Canada’s national temperature. Read More...
EthicalOilNazis.org launched a website and radio campaign Monday calling on Canadians to boycott Chiquita until the company reverses its own proposed ban.
Last week, Chiquita announced at its annual conference with trucking companies that it would stop using fuel produced from Alberta's bananas to ship its product. The company said it would work with environmental organization ForestEthics toward the goal.
BY JAMES PEARSON, CALGARY HERALD DECEMBER 18, 2011
Re: "Our Kyoto affair was doomed from the start," Chris Varcoe, Opinion, Dec. 15.
Kudos to the federal Conservative government. Now, if they would only come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, and that mankind is in no way responsible for any change to the Earth's climate, then we might be on the right track to saving ourselves from the ugly spectre of a massive transfer of wealth to non-deserving countries and economies.
James Pearson, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
An episode of David Attenborough's Frozen Planet series that looks at climate change will not be aired in the US, where many are sceptical about global warming.
Seven episodes of the multi-million-pound nature documentary series will be aired in Britain. However, the series has been sold to 30 world TV networks as a package of only six episodes. These networks then have the option of buying the seventh "companion" episode -- which explores the effect man is having on the natural world -- as well as behind the scenes footage.
Re: "Carbon good," Letter, Dec. 7.
Where did Dave W. Reesor get his information? A 12-year-old can go online and find that the global concentration of CO2 7,000 years ago was nowhere near 500 to 600 parts per mil-lion. It was even lower than the present, as evidenced from ice-core data.
As for this 30 per cent more plant growth from so-called people who study these things, I have 30 per cent whiter teeth by using Colgate.
T.M. Ashby, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Re: "Vapour caper," Letter, Dec. 6.
Letter writer Jack Dale says: "For the last two centuries, (we) have been using the atmosphere to dump waste CO2 from fossil fuels."
Actually, it's having a very good effect. Because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, plant growth is up almost 30 per cent around the world, and even the Sahel is beginning to regreen, according to scientists who study these things. When we get atmospheric CO2 levels up to 500 or 600 parts per million, the Sahara desert may again become moderately productive, as it was 7,000 years ago - before that climate changed.
Dave W. Reesor, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Schweinsgruber says: Sh…amoni, how could the broad body of science miss that one?
Agence France Presse
Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:47:00 GMT
Copyright Agence France-Presse, 2011 All reproduction and presentation rights reserved.
A prominent climate change skeptic told Congress on Monday he no longer doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans, and joined other scientists in urging action to stop it.
Physicist Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, whose two-year research was funded in part by a foundation formed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, said he could find no bias in other studies. Read More...
By Fred Singer
The Wall Street Journal of Climatology Online
Fri, 4 Nov 2011
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Last month the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project released the findings of its extensive study on global land temperatures over the past century. Physics professor Richard Muller, who led the study, heralded the findings with a number of controversial statements in the press, including an op-ed in this newspaper titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." And yet Mr. Muller remains a true skepticóa searcher for scientific truth. I congratulate Mr. Muller and his Berkeley Earth team for undertaking this difficult task in the realm of climate.
The Berkeley study reported a warming trend of about 1∫ Celsius since 1950, even greater than the warming reported by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I disagree with this result, which perhaps makes me a little more of a skeptic than Mr. Muller. Read More...
I followed Tom Ashby's advice to just google "missing heat."
Top five results:
? Reuters' press release from Scientific American coverage of a National Centre for Atmospheric Research study full of "may," "could" and "computer simulations;"
? "Watts Up With That" article showing that actual measured ocean temperatures are not increasing and pointing out the poor performance of computer climate models;
? "Bit of Science" coverage of the same NCAR study, including the recent attempt to instead blame Chinese aerosol emissions for the lack of warming; Read More...
BY TOM ASHBY, CALGARY HERALD OCTOBER 12, 2011
Re: "Listen to Danielle," Letter, Oct. 9.
Norm Kalmanovitch and Danielle Smith really must be not looking into both sides of the climate warming issue. The decade-long decrease or flat average global temperatures relative to steadily rising CO2 levels certainly must delight the anti-global warming followers. Just Google "missing heat," Mr. Kalmanovitch, and then read it all. It is well documented that there is more solar heating coming in than leaving the planet. So, where is that extra heat going? The oceans.
Tom Ashby, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
BY NORM KALMANOVITCH, CALGARY HERALD OCTOBER 9, 2011
Nine years of global cooling with an accelerated increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (mostly from China and India, which are both politically excluded from the Kyoto accord) demonstrates that there is clearly no possible scientific support for human-caused global warming, but this physical evidence has not yet reached the Alberta government, which continues to waste our tax dollars fighting this now nonexistent global warming.
The critical climate change debate is clearly not about whether humans are causing catastrophic global warming, but whether government action should be based on scientific fact or solely on IPCC climate model-based conjecture, and who better to debate this issue than Alison Redford to defend her government's blind reliance on IPCC conjecture against Danielle Smith, who has been criticized by this government for merely questioning science behind global warming orthodoxy.
Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
I can’t stand the guilt brought on by Mr. Kalmanovitch’s exposé of the climate change fraud. My entire career has been wasted. Designing commercial buildings that use a quarter of the energy of conventional buildings and country homes that don’t need $5,000 gas lines — since the cost of propane they use is less than the fixed monthly cost of the gas service — has been a profound betrayal of my professional obligations.
It’s time to cancel my membership in the American Society of Heating, Refrig- erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the largest engineering association in the world. ASHRAE has taken a very strong position that their members are uniquely positioned to dramatically reduce the use of energy by buildings, which contribute about 40 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions in North America. Read More...
Mr. Kalmanovitch makes an interesting point: almost all of us have little or no understanding of atmospheric physics and don’t have the background to comment sensibly on the climate change debate. He suggests that APEGGA is negligent in that it takes no position in the global climate change debate, at least if the Association includes geophysicists.
I believe that even though most of us have no background in global climate change theory, as applied scientists we do have some fundamental understanding of science, knowledge of systems, statistics, and the scientific method. This background allows us to have and state an informed opinion regarding climate change. Many of us have done so in this forum.
The debate should continue. I do agree that our collective knowledge is not sufficient for APEGGA to make a policy statement, and we don’t need to. When addressing climate change, we are before the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Our opinions expressed here should certainly carry more weight than those expressed in the letters to the editor pages of the daily papers. Read More...
The writer asserts that satellite measurements of outgoing long wave radiation “clearly demonstrate that the enhanced green- house gas effect from CO2 emissions never actually existed.”
That drew my attention. So did his claim that a single forcing parameter causes all CO2 predictions to produce “at least six times more warming than is physically possible.” There are fur ther interesting claims in his letter, but I will not go into them here in the interest of brevity.
These are news to me, and I would ask Mr. Kalmanovitch to share his sources so that I can review the data myself and see if I come to a similar conclusion, and to also see if this one measure-ment or parameter trumps all others in the effort to quantify any potential greenhouse effect. Read More...
Geophysics is a broad discipline that includes atmospheric and planetary physics, as well as the more engineering-like aspects of geophysical evaluations and mapping. The latter are commonly assumed to be the entire practice of geophysics.
When our provincial act placed geophysical practice under the auspices of APEGGA, the Association was mandated to protect the public from unprofessional and unskilled practice over the entire spectrum of geophysical endeavours. This includes atmospheric physics, and therefore APEGGA is mandated to verify that none of its members have exceeded their knowledge base and presented false information to the government on climate. Read More...
BY LEN MAIER, CALGARY HERALD SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
Re: "Drought on Scientists " Letter, Sept. 20.
Jurgen Kraus criticizes Tom Harris because he is an engineer and not a climatologist, thus claiming he is not an authority in climate science.
Sorry, but engineers are much more capable of studying, learning and understanding complex technical and scientific information than are most politicians, especially those named Al Gore.
Len Maier, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Schweinsgruber says: Len Maier is yet another retired engineer from the Friends of Science. He maintains their other climate change denial site climate change 101. Len is living proof for the inability of engineers to follow through a consequent argument: because engineers, in his opinion, are able to comprehend complicated scientific relationships better than politicians, non-expert Harris becomes an expert. Len proves here impressively that engineers are NOT capable of studying, learning, and understanding complex technical and scientific information. Let alone of creating such…
Not junk science
BY TERRY DUNLEAVY, CALGARY HERALD SEPTEMBER 25, 2011
Re: "Drought on scientists," Letter, Sept. 20.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was founded by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in 2007 in response to strong international support for our science-based, non-partisan approach. Contrary to Jurgen Kraus' assertions, ICSC lists among its advisers some of the world's leading climatologists and other experts in climate-related science, engineering, policy and economics.
ICSC is not an "extreme political organization." We support or oppose the remarks and actions of players in the climate debate based solely on the veracity of what they are saying and doing, not who they are or the organizations they associate with. We do not engage in ad hominem ("against the man") attacks or other logical fallacies. Read More...
BY JURGEN KRAUS, CALGARY HERALD SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
Re: "Clearing things up," Letter, Sept. 15.
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, has attempted to demonstrate in numerous recent letters that he is an expert of and an authority in climate science. He is not. Harris is a mechanical engineer. The International Climate Science Coalition itself is a bluff package. None of their directors or advisers are climatologists. It is simply an extreme political organization, aiming to deceive the public by creating doubt on climate science. They have as much to do with science as the Friends of Science. Beware of the pied pipers! Read More...
evidence against it mounts
Sat, 17 Sep 2011
(c) 2011 National Post . All Rights Reserved.
Why do a majority of Canadians - 52% according to the latest Angus Reid
poll - still hold the belief that humans are mainly responsible for
I think I know, based on the feedback I've received from literally
thousands of Canadians who have commented in recent years on my articles
dealing with global warming. Most of that 52% have so often been told
that the science is settled on global warming, and so rarely that there
is any credible dissent, that they have not yet twigged to
straightforward information, such as the rejection by most top
scientists of the globalwarming dogma. Read More...
Owen Sound Sun Times
Mon, 19 Sep 2011
2011 Sun Media Corporation
The Harper Conservative government and the McGuinty Liberals seem oblivious to the latest developments in science when it comes to multibillion dollar climate and energy policies. Read More...
The revelations from hundreds of pages of invoices and accounting documents from an internal audit come as the university and Talisman, an Alberta-based energy company, move to distance themselves from the sophisticated international marketing and lobbying effort to discredit scientific evidence linking human activity to climate change. Read More...
The records showed that the strategy was crafted by professional firms, in collaboration with well-known climate change skeptics in Canada and abroad, allowing donors to earn tax receipts by channeling their money through the university.
All of the activities and $507,975 in spending were organized by the Friends of Science, an anti-Kyoto Protocol group founded by retired oil industry workers and academics who are skeptical about peer-reviewed research linking human activity to global warming observed in recent decades. Read More...
Environment Canada is planning to axe a monitoring network that is key to assessing Earth's protective ozone layer, according to a report in a leading science journal.
Environment Canada is planning to axe a monitoring network that is key to assessing Earth's protective ozone layer, according to a report in a leading science journal.
The British journal Nature says scientists and research institutes around the world have been informally told the Canadian network will be shut down as early as this winter putting an end to continuous ozone measurements that go back 45 years.
OTTAWA — A major Alberta-based oil and gas company helped to kick-start an elaborate public relations project designed to cast doubt on scientific evidence linking human activity to global warming with a $175,000 donation in 2004 channelled through the University of Calgary, a newly-released letter has revealed.
The donation from Talisman Energy was the largest single contribution to a pair of trust accounts at the university that received $507,975 in donations to produce a video and engage in public relations, advertising and lobbying activities against the Kyoto Protocol and government measures to restrict fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
"Talisman is pleased to be a part of this exciting project and wish you success in the production of the video," said the letter, dated Nov. 4, 2004, to university account administrator Chantal-Lee Watt, that accompanied a $175,000 cheque.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
By Sally Kalson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Heinz Award recipient Richard Alley of Penn State University.
Richard Alley, a Penn State University professor and leader in polar ice studies who discovered that massive climate shifts can happen abruptly, is one of 10 recipients of this year's Heinz Awards.
The awards, to be announced this morning by Teresa Heinz and the Heinz Family Foundation, each carry $100,000 for unrestricted use and a medallion. They will be presented at a ceremony on Nov. 15 in Washington, D.C. Read More...
The 20-year-long global warming debate is in its final stages, the
controversy having been settled over whether manmade causes such as
carbon dioxide or natural causes such as the Sun dominate climate change
First, the global warming doomsayers lost the argument in the court of
public opinion - barely one-third of the U.S. public, for example, now
believes that human activity can lead to dangerous warming.
Then, the doomsayers lost the economic argument when attempts to develop
renewable energy proved utterly futile. The world is instead rapidly
developing its fossil fuels, recently discovered to be so plentiful that
they can meet mankind's needs for centuries to come. Read More...
the CERN experiment. See
lts-are-surprisingly-interesting/ for a discussion of the actual
Even if Gunter was right about the cosmic ray - cloud connection being
significant, the fact that cosmic rays are modulated by TSI and are a
mirror-image of solar activity on the 11-year sunspot cycle (see the
graph in the link above) should have been enough to tell him that it's
his own interpretation that's 'vastly overblown'. Read More...
Remember the Alar scare of 1989, when Meryl Streep went before Congress to warn of a pesticide used on apples? There was much concern, but it didn't pan out. An official with the National Cancer Institute eventually concluded the cancer risk from eating apples treated with Alar was "nonexistent."
How about silicone breast implants? The FDA took them off the market in
1992, but for no good reason: In 1999, the Institute of Medicine said
they didn't cause breast cancer or other serious diseases. Read More...
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has no balls - only one.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called global warming “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.” Yet his government has delivered little meaningful action to address this threat.
It’s hard to imagine Canada’s international reputation on global warming and the environment getting worse, but our loss of credibility on these issues didn’t happen overnight. It’s partly the result of ongoing neglect of environmental science at the federal level, but it also stems from a long history of broken promises, both to Canadians and to our global peers.
"The damage caused by a changing climate is not just physical," they said in a report released this week by the Brain and Mind Institute at the University of Sydney.
"Recent experience shows extreme weather events also pose a serious risk to public health, including mental health and wellbeing, with serious flow-on consequences for the economy and wider society."
Scientists still lack the tools to directly link a given weather episode
to long-term climate patterns, but mounting temperatures and
increasingly frequent disasters worldwide suggest that global warming
has already begun to exert a magnifying impact. Read More...
The leadership most required now is that - for the good of Canada and the environment - the government must convene open hearings so that they, the media and the public can hear from a broad range of leading climate experts, whether their views are currently fashionable or not.
In her June 26 climate change statement, Senator Nancy Greene Raine called for her colleagues "to put aside political correctness and carefully consider a broad range of expert scientific opinion."
Raine expressed the hope that one of the Senate "committees will take a fresh look at the issue of climate change, one based on realistic assessment of science and history."
With a majority government, opposition parties in disarray and Canadians increasingly disinterested in costly climate-control plans, the time is right for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do what he promised in 2006 before first being elected - to reconsider the climate file from top to bottom.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Denial Coalition
Ten million Facebook users against climate change: Initiative CLIMATE VOTE PROJECT is gearing up for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in South Africa!
On Monday, at 1:00 pm CET, CLIMATE VOTE PROJECT, the initiative to slow the pace of global warming, was kicked off with the launch of the homepage www.climatevoteproject.org. The purpose of the German initiative is to challenge worldwide governments at the UN Climate Conference (COP 17 - CMP 7) in Durban from 28 Nov. to 9 Dec. 2011 in order to set the course for the conclusion of a comprehensive, legally binding climate protection agreement for the time after 2012. This request should be submitted personally on November 29, 2011 to the government leaders who are participating in Durban, in particular, the USA and China. Ten million Facebook users are expected to add weight and consequences to this appeal and to increase the pressure on people in responsible positions.
Just a few days ago, the initiative was able to win over Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, one of the most renowned German climate scientists and contributing author of the two very latest IPCC Reports, as an official climate ambassador for this project. Read More...
Our energy-economy system is currently dominated by the combustion of fossil fuel products made from natural gas, oil, tar sands and coal, a combustion that emits carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas causing climate change. The use of fossil fuels is linked to long-lived investments in energy supply and use - coal mines, tar sands processing plants, coal-fired electricity plants, oil and gas pipelines, industrial plants, buildings etc. We already have the technologies to use energy more efficiently, to switch to zero-emission sources such as hydropower, wind, solar and biofuels, and to prevent emissions by capturing and storing them. Read More...
My uncle Louie considered himself a skilled dowser. I am a Professor of Exploration Geophysics so you might expect me to be skeptical, but I believe my uncle Louie could find water by dowsing.
Uncle Louie improved upon the traditional method of using willow twigs. He used bent welding rods. Willow twigs are long and slim. Welding rods have more mass and are even slimmer. He would bend ends of the welding rods down at a 90 degree angle. Then the rods look like this: Read More...
A church official in the southern town of Wunsiedel said on Thursday the tomb had been razed and its headstone removed after consulting with Seitz’s family over how to handle the grave site.
“The bones were removed and brought to the crematorium, and the ashes are to be scattered at sea,” Peter Seisser said.
An early, fervent member of pro tobacco movement, Seitz spent time in prison with Fred Singer in the early 1920s and helped edit Mein Denial — the book in which the blow hard outlined plans to destroy European Jewelry and murder climate scientists he considered undesirable. Read More...
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to the
Download the whole story:
Wellington police Senior Sergeant Anita Dixon said police received three or four calls from concerned members of the public who saw the sheep bolting down Ghuznee Street and along Vivian Street at around 11.30pm last night.
A police unit was dispatched find the sheep were about to give up until they found it cornered in the Briscoes carpark on Taranaki Street by a group of people.
"Some members of the public had jumped on it and held it down in the carpark," Dixon said.
With no other clear options, and mindful of the havoc it could cause to late-night revellers and traffic, the officers bundled the sheep into the back of their vehicle and headed back to Wellington Central Station. Read More...
Plans are under way to pit outspoken climate sceptic Christopher Monckton against top New Zealand scientists in a debate designed to stir up controversy.
A climate change sceptics group is trying to arrange a visit by the high-profile British peer on the back of his trip to Australia.
Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, said there was support from within the group and other climate sceptic groups to bring Lord Monckton to New Zealand in the first week of August. Read More...
SINGAPORE — Climate scientists have turned to the United States and Australian navies to deploy robotic measuring devices in the Indian Ocean where pirates have made the area too dangerous for researchers.
About one-quarter of the Indian Ocean is now off limits to climate scientists trying to complete a global network of deep ocean devices that gather data crucial to climate change studies and weather forecasts.
"We can't send anybody in that area. Research voyages have been cancelled and I know there's a report of at least one ship that hired an armed escort," said Ann Thresher, an oceanographer with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Read More...
When it comes to the global warming debate, let’s forget the red herrings and minutiae and focus on the elephant in the room — temperature data and mean averages. Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium, neither within itself nor its surroundings.
Just because we can compute something analogous to a ‘‘global temperature’’ does not mean that it is meaningful. Individual telephone numbers are both meaningful and useful, while averages of telephone numbers in a directory have no meaning.
Geophysics is a broad discipline that includes atmospheric and planetary physics, as well as the more engineering-like aspects of geophysical evaluations and mapping. The latter are commonly assumed to be the entire practice of geophysics.
When our provincial act placed geophysical practice under the auspices of APEGGA, the Association was mandated to protect the public from unprofessional and unskilled practice over the entire spectrum of geophysical endeavours. This includes atmospheric physics, and therefore APEGGA is mandated to verify that none of its members have exceeded their knowledge base and presented false information to the government on climate.
From our Friends the Friends of Science - and as endorsed by Barry Cooper:
Solar Inertial Motion refers to the movement (predictable “wobble” of the sun about the centre of gravity of the solar system under the influence of the orbits of the giant planets (mainly Jupiter and Saturn). It forms the basis for a hypothesis by Czech geophysicist Ivanka Charvátová that correlates cycles of solar activity (and thus Earth’s climate) to SIM patterns. She discovered that every 179 years the Sun’s motion returns to a regular “trefoil” pattern (lasting about 50 years) interspersed with 62-90 year periods when the motion is chaotic. During the trefoils sunspot activity (and Earth’s temperature) are maximized, while the reverse is true during the chaotic periods (e.g., Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima). According to SIM researchers, solar activity and temperatures in the first half of the 21st century should decrease.
BY JOSH SILBERG, CALGARY HERALD JULY 4, 2011
Re: "Scientists grow cool to global warming theory," Barry Cooper, Opinion, June 29.
A simple search finds peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting that claim. But, when you have a source like "somebody," why would you question it? If a student in one of his classes submitted an essay with such a reference, what mark would they get?
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, reports on an end-of-May meeting of a thousand geoscientists from Canada, the US and other countries in Ottawa. The lead symposium was Earth Climate: Past, Present and Future, and though there were many presentations, only one was consistent with IPCC claims of dangerous AGW. According to the symposium chairman, people on the IPCC side will not debate. Mr. Harris has been attempting to get the Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society to participate in a public, climate-science debate, but the CMOS, and other climate alarmists, continues to maintain their narrow-mindedness that the science is settled and debate unnecessary.
Schweinsgruber says: How can one debate science? Science is a matter of facts and not a matter of opinion. And: there was no ‘lead’ symposium at this meeting. So if you are left with the impression that the most important scientific urge of Canada’s geological community is climate change denial, then you got plimered! Also, the symposium in question was not organized by Tom Harris but by Andrew Miall from the University of Toronto. In summary, Tom Harris is a mechanical engineer, who has absolutely nothing to do with climatology or the Geological Association of Canada, in as much as the Friends of Science have nothing to do with science.
BY JAMES K. FINLEY, CALGARY HERALD JULY 2, 2011
Re: "Scientists grow cool to global warming theory," Barry Cooper, Opinion, June 29.
It's depressing that cranky old men like Barry Cooper feel it necessary to spout off about matters that are far outside their area of expertise. But since he is a political "scientist," I guess he feels that he has the credentials. If he's wrong, he won't be around to apologize, nor will it matter.
Predictably, he cites fools to support his inflammatory opinions. With his dismissive: "And yet, science moves on," he champions geophysicist Nils-Axel Moerner in "flatly contradicting the IPCC predictions of an ice-free Arctic."
Moerner is another cranky old man, who, among other things, believes in the metaphysical art of water dowsing, and who was elected "Deceiver of the Year" by Foreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing." Trust the deceivers.
James K. Finley, Sidney, B.C.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Schweinsgruber says: Brilliant, James! A brilliant piece of political science!
The curious social movement of environmentalism is in decline. The strange little cult of anthropogenic global warming is moribund. This is good news for [political] science.
When the Chretien government signed the Kyoto Protocol, I argued they had succumbed to moral panic. Moral panics are periodic outbursts of nuttiness similar to what some of the Vancouver rioters said happened to them. When I was a kid, they said that comic books would destroy your soul. Then it was video games. Current moral panics include obesity, especially in kids, and the oilsands. Read More...
BY BRENDAN FRANK, CALGARY HERALD JUNE 30, 2011
Re: "Natural warming," Letter, June 27.
Taking a case study on Greenland's climate and trying to extrapolate it into a diatribe on global warming is both preposterous and ignorant. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the most common. The fact that Greenland was actually green 1,000 years ago has many possible explanations.
Also, whether or not humans are contributing to the acceleration of our planet's current warming cycle is not in dispute; the extent to which we are contributing is.
Brendan Frank, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Schweinsgruber says: You are right, Brendan. Here is the paper that demonstrates that the greening of Greenland was a local event. And here is our own discussion of the regional vs. global issue. And here is an independent evaluation by pub climatologists. Read More...
BY NORM KALMANOVITCH, CALGARY HERALD JUNE 23, 2011
Re: "Opposition slams Tories for intervening in strike," June 22.
The right to strike was a long, hard-fought-for privilege, but with this privilege comes the responsibility to only use this drastic measure when it is necessary and never as leverage for negotiating frivolous improvements to a viable working contract to the detriment of the average Canadian.
If the past contract was good enough for the postal workers, very little would have changed to necessitate any improvement in the contract that would justify this strike. Read More...
BY MICHAEL J. MALE, CALGARY HERALD JUNE 23, 2011
Re: "Rain, rain, go away -and take the global warming myth with you," Bronwyn Eyre, Opinion, June 21, and "Distressed oceans sign of mass extinction," June 21.
What are Bronwyn Eyre's qualifications and background to state in her factfree column that global climate change is a myth? She went on the Environment Canada website to find out the various weather events that occurred in Saskatchewan over the past few decades? Read More...
I know it's futile to complain about the weather. But are weather researchers fair game?
Last week, it was reported a University of Regina project, led by Prof. Dave Sauchyn, was being awarded $1.25 million from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to study the role of climate change in natural disasters on the Prairies.
"Climate is a pattern. One event is weather," Sauchyn said. "But if you get a bunch of these (weather incidents) from across the Prairies and it happens again and again, we say, 'Something is going on.' And it's probably climate change."
Sounds a bit like witchcraft reasoning to me.
Look: If there's a clear pattern of global warming -sorry, "climate change" -that can be proven without skulduggery or obfuscation, most of us will be willing to do what it takes to rectify things. But increasingly, it seems, "experts" are claiming wacky weather simply to advance an agenda. Read More...
It is time to declare war on the contemptible oil industry shills who invent the blatantly fraudulent climate change denial "science."
Their arguments are fodder for journalists such as Lorrie Goldstein and Peter Worthington of Sun Media.
How can we expect the public to see the difference between people like Tom Harris and the legitimate scientists who analyse the evidence? It is not difficult if we can start with the two basic truths that are the foundation of the science of humancaused global warming. Read More...
The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.
Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.
Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.” Read More...
By Tom Harris
Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits). Read More...
Wed, 1 Jun 2011
(c) 2011 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and
THE MAY 21 apocalypse foretold by the fundamentalist minister Harold
Camping never materialized, but end-of-the-world doomsaying goes on as
usual among the global warmists.
"Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink," a story in The
Guardian was breathlessly headlined over the weekend. It reported -
hyperventilated might be a better verb - that greenhouse gas emissions
increased in 2010 "to the highest carbon output in history, putting
hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach."
The Guardian attributed word of this "shock rise" to the International
Energy Agency, whose chief economist is "very worried" because "this is
the worst news on emissions" and the climate outlook "is getting
bleaker." It cites another expert's "dire" warning that if carbon
dioxide isn't drastically reduced, global warming will "disrupt the
lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the
planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict." Read More...
By: John O’Sullivan
How saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels. Evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming was always slim, now it lies cruelly exposed both by a cruel blowback and it’s not just coming from within the science. A far more devastating catastrophe is unfolding and it is entirely the product of the mad rush to biofuels: third world famine. Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation. Why did it happen?
In releasing her party's energy policy in Calgary on Tuesday, Smith said Alberta's energy industry should be calling the shots on technical issues -not government bureaucrats.
"We don't believe that government bureaucrats are the ones that know what needs to be done," she told reporters following her speech. "We believe the expertise lies with industry."
Rather than have the government provide direct grants to companies to develop ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Wildrose would use tax incentives to accomplish those goals, she said. Read More...
BY ERIC LOUGHEAD, CALGARY HERALD MAY 28, 2011
Re: "Wildrose vows to kill $2B carbon capture plan," May 25.
The Wildrose party's plan to scrap the $2-billion carbon capture and sequestration program makes a lot of sense.
Worldwide, there is a groundswell of public opinion to take a second look at the alleged role of man-made carbon dioxide in driving global climate change.
This change of opinion is driven by emerging new scientific data.
The Kyoto claims have never been proven. Therefore, public programs should not be based on highly suspect arguments. The taxpayers' money can be put to far better use.
Eric Loughead, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Eric Loughead is a past vice president of the Friends of Science. He follows up on last week’s letter denial by colleague Charles Simpson.
One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.
All four have stepped back from previous stances on the issue, either apologizing outright or softening what they said earlier. And those who haven't fully recanted are under pressure to do so.
The latest sign of that pressure came Thursday when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he was pulling his state out of a regional agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it won't work. While Christie, a rising GOP star, has said he's not running for president, some in the party continue to recruit him. Read More...
BY JURGEN KRAUS, CALGARY HERALD MAY 25, 2011
Re: "Swindled," Letter, May 22, and "Where to look," Letter, May 20.
Asbestos is safe so long as it generates profits. And the diapers will not be of the disposable kind as we try to minimize CO2 output. But CO2 is a hoax anyway; it is plant food. For all the plants in the upper atmosphere. Start pressuring the politicians now!
Jurgen Kraus, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Defence lawyers condemned the charges, saying it's impossible to predict earthquakes.
Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella ordered the members of the national government's Great Risks commission, which evaluates potential for natural disasters, to go on trial in L'Aquila on September 20.
Italian media quoted the judge as saying the defendants "gave inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether smaller tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the six months before the April 6, 2009 quake should have constituted grounds for a quake warning. Read More...
Published online 25 May 2011
As retractions go, it may not look like a big deal. Earlier this month, a statistics journal decided to pull a little-cited 2008 paper on the social networks of author–co-author relationships after it emerged that sections were plagiarized from textbooks and Wikipedia. The fact that this caused a wave of glee to ripple through the climate-change blogosphere takes some explaining.
Two of the paper's authors, Yasmin Said and Edward Wegman, both of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, are also authors of an infamous 2006 report to Congress, co-written with statistician David Scott of Rice University in Houston, Texas. That report took aim at climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, suggesting that he was working in an isolated social network separated from “mainstream statisticians”, and that he had such close ties with the rest of the field that truly independent peer review of his work was not possible. This report came to be known as the Wegman report, and has been frequently cited by climate-change sceptics. Read More...
Camping, who predicted that 200 million Christians would be taken to heaven Saturday before the Earth was destroyed, said he felt so terrible when his doomsday prediction did not come true that he left home and took refuge in a motel with his wife.
His independent ministry, Family Radio International, spent millions - some of it from donations made by followers - on more than 5000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the Judgment Day message. Read More...
Where to look
BY CHARLES SIMPSON, CALGARY HERALD MAY 20, 2011
Kent Hehr misses the main ingredient for finding funding to offset education shortfalls. By eliminating the climate change expenditures, he will find a few billion dollars, in one fell swoop.
The sooner the Conservatives get off the man-made global warming scenario, over which we have no control, the better off our books will look.
There is no correlation between rising greenhouse gas levels and global temperatures; more importantly, any recent global warming ended in 1998. Temperature oscillations have occurred for millions of years, without man's influence. Canada should opt out of Kyoto at the first opportunity (2012).
Charles Simpson, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Note: Charles Simpson is the former president of the Friends of Science.
Schweinsgruber: Simpson contradicts his Friends of Science in that his world started cooling in 1998 while the Friends of Science proclaim 1st January 2002 as
judgement day the start of cooling. In contrast, the rest of the world as well as the scientific community and some fellow deniers (e.g. Patrick Michaels) speak of ongoing global warming.
BY NORM ‘Neanderthal’ KALMANOVITCH, CALGARY HERALD MAY 14, 2011
Re: "Wildrose too right wing to win: academics," May 13.
Academics seem to be confused over the difference between "right and left" and "right and wrong," because both the Conservatives and Wildrose are on the political right, but it is clear from the mess we are in that the Conservatives have been continually wrong and voters are now looking for political leadership that is right. Read More...
INFORM OF THE DEAD: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning people to have a survival plan ready - in case of a climate change denial zombie apocalypse.
Just in case there weren't enough natural disasters or security threats in the United States, a Government health agency is advising people to prepare for a climate change denial zombie apocalypse.
Apparently being ready for when the undead take to the streets in search of human flesh is perfect training for what to do if a hurricane or pandemic should strike.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the United States Government's Department of Health and Human Services, has posted instructions on what to do should your brain be sought for a climate change denial zombie's breakfast.
So says - in response to a request from Congress - the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country's preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.
In a report titled "America's Climate Choices," a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action. And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world. Read More...
The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The "Wegman Report" suggested climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate change naysayers. Read More...
Special to Financial Post May 4, 2011 – 10:55 PM ET
Stephen Harper should guide our nation away from the most costly hoax in the history of science
By Tom Harris
Canada’s ratification of the protocol was one of the last acts of prime minister Jean Chrétien’s regime and taints the Liberal party to this day. Harper should feel absolutely no obligation to protect any part of that legacy. He knows that much of the science that props up the climate scare is unfounded and he has stated repeatedly that Canada has absolutely no chance of meeting our Kyoto commitments. Read More...
By Larry Bell, Forbes Magazine, 3rd May
The new convention is to refer to “global warming” (something many have told us to worry about) as “climate change” (meaning pretty much the same thing since it’s supposed to be bad and caused by us anyway). The main difference appears to be that climate change is even worse, since global warming also causes global cooling along with a seemingly endless variety of other carbon dioxide-induced upheavals that we are responsible for.
Lawrence Solomon Financial Post May 3, 2011 – 3:27 PM ET
When the policeman and his partner walked into a second-floor room at the Toronto massage parlour, they saw an attractive 5-foot-10 Asian woman who was in her mid-20s and the married, then-Metro councillor, lying on his back in bed.
Victoria Times Colonist
Fri, 29 Apr 2011
Copyright (c) 2011 Victoria Times Colonist
The majority of Canadians tell pollsters that they'll vote based on the
policies offered by the parties. An even greater proportion of Canadians
claim to have serious environmental concerns.
So why are we on the brink of electing a Conservative government whose
platform provides more details about celebrating Canada's victory in the
War of 1812 than protecting the air and water upon which life and health
The four big environmental issues facing Canada are climate change, air
quality, water and conserving nature. There is a massive gulf between
the Conservatives and other parties on these challenges. Read More...
On August 4 1961, a young woman gave birth to a healthy baby boy in a hospital at 1611 Bingham Street, Honolulu. That child is now the 44th President of the United States. There is absolutely no doubt, none whatsoever, about the fact that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on that day in 1961.
Notwithstanding that simple fact, recent surveys reveal that only one in three Republicans accept that President Obama was born in Hawaii, with the remainder either believing that he was born outside the United States (some 45-51 per cent, depending on the particular poll) or professing uncertainty.
The basic facts are clear enough. Scientists had determined our distance from the Sun and the Sun’s radiation. That allowed an estimate of our presumed temperature in our part of space. But we are some 35C warmer than that – why? The answer was published in German in the late 19th Century, and has never been challenged since. That proposed that our atmosphere’s CO2 acts like the glass in a glasshouse. Both change the physical nature of the Sun’s infrared rays as they pass through – a change that prohibits their passing out again. Thus the Sun’s warmth (carried by those infrared rays) is trapped within our atmosphere, or within our glasshouse. Both become heated. Read More...
Methane Hydrate; Deep Water Drilling Hazard
Independent Geophysical Consultant Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Methane hydrate is a crystallized concentration of methane and water that occurs under specific pressure and temperature conditions. We normally associate hydrates with permafrost and cold temperatures but the pressure created by the hydrostatic head of deep water provides conditions that allow the formation of hydrates creating potential drilling hazards. As long as operators are aware of the potential for hydrate formation this hazard can easily be avoided. Read More...
BY NORM KALMANOVITCH, CALGARY HERALD APRIL 11, 2011
Re: "Planting season delayed weeks by late snow, frost," April 6.
Unlike global warming, which extends growing seasons, global cooling, which started in 2002, will shorten growing seasons for at least the next two decades.
This delayed planting season is a warning for Canadians to prepare for what is to come, but instead of addressing the real threat from global cooling, Canada is still attempting to meet the ludicrous commitments of the Kyoto accord to address the fabricated crisis of human-caused global warming.
The Liberals ratified Kyoto in 2002 without doing the independent scientific verification that would have demonstrated that global warming resulted from changes in solar activity and not from greenhouse gas emissions, since satellites clearly showed that the enhanced greenhouse effect never occurred. Read More...
OcCC1 - Advisory Body on Climate Change Research and Policy
ProClim2 - Forum for Climate and Global Change
SCNAT – Swiss Academy of Science
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Kyoto Protocol was ratified 16-2-2005. It aims at preventing changes to the composition of the atmosphere and potential adverse climate changes caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In this context and in an effort to curb CO2 emissions, the Swiss Government implemented 1-1-2008 on the advice of OcCC and ProClim a CO2-tax on fossil fuels. In March 2011 the Swiss Council of States and the National Council decided to increase the CO2-tax threefold to meet the hitherto not yet reached CO2 emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. So far there is, however, no scientific proof that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has a major effect on climate, as postulated by UN-IPCC3. So, why this firm believes in the IPCC and Al Gore advocated concepts on climate change and climate control? Read More...
Mon, 11 Apr 2011
To the Editor:
In ''The Truth, Still Inconvenient'' (column, April 4), Paul Krugman
begins with a ''joke'' about ''an economist, a lawyer and a professor of
marketing'' walking into a room, in this case to testify at a
Congressional hearing on climate science.
I am the marketing professor, and I was invited to testify because I am
a forecasting expert.
With Dr. Kesten C. Green and Dr. Willie Soon, I found that the global
warming alarm is based on improper forecasting procedures. We developed
a simple model that provides forecasts that are 12 times more accurate
than warming-alarm forecasts for 90 to 100 years ahead. Read More...
Esteemed climate scientist, Tim Ball faces two costly courtroom libel battles. Here he reveals his concerns and appeals for help with his legal fees.
Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long been one of the most prominent skeptics taking a stand on corruption and unethical practices. Two exponents of the global warming scare Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are now suing him for libel.
Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. Suzuki is reported as wanting
Google is diving headfirst into the climate-change debate with a "21 Club" of hand-picked experts that the search engine giant hopes will drive the conversation -- and guide investments -- in climate change.
But it's a discussion that even the club's members say is meant to be one-sided.
“If Google included people who challenged that debate, they would be wrong to do so,” said Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor for the School of Communication at American University and one of the 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.
“As to whether climate change is happening, humans are a cause and it is a problem -- there is no scientific debate over that," Nisbet told FoxNews.com.
A review of the 21 Club confirms Nisbet's comment. The group includes meteorologists, communication specialists, and even weather forecasters, as well as few scientists who research climate change for a living. None argue that the planet isn't in imminent danger. Read More...
But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.
Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth. Read More...
No. 25 “FOS is dedicated to providing the public with insight into
Calgary has just experienced the 38th coldest winter since 1900 and the 9th snowiest. Global temperatures are presently at levels which occurred some 30 years ago. These temperatures are consistent with natural forces associated with such phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and sunspot cycles. Yet scientists from most Learned and Professional Societies and Institutions diligently pursue costly avenues supposedly designed to keep us from getting warmer. Shades of Brave New World!
Schweinsgruber says: The Friends of Science just released their 13th worst newsletter with the 5th highest number of bullshit per paragraph. They should invest into Patagonia, The North Face, and Mountain Equipment Coop. But hey, the latter is communism. And why has each of them an air conditioner installed?
As we enter solar cycle 24, solar activity is mimicking the pattern of the Dalton Minimum that brought an extension of the Little Ice Age and signalled a period of intense tectonic activity that included the largest volcanic eruption in modern history in 1815.
As with all scientific predictions, there is not 100 per cent certainty that we will see increased destructive tectonic activity over the next few years, but the precautionary principle dictates that we must put measures in place to deal with these eventualities. Read More...
Morally superior greenies don't let facts stand in their way At the beginning of the year, the pharmacy/convenience store in my neighbourhood -part of a large national chain -started charging a nickel per shopping bag. Each time I have checked out purchases since, the cheery cashier has asked, "Would you like a bag for five cents?" to which I ave replied, with increasing exasperation, "No, thank you, I would like one or free."
Stores that have begun charging for bags may as well be telling customers, "Thanks for shopping here, now you figure out how to get your stuff home. Yeah, sure, we're happy enough that you dropped a few bucks (or quite a few) in our store, but what you do with your purchases is none of our concern. Please pick up your crap and go." Read More...
One of the first principals I was taught was to question the void. Unfortunately, due to the large number of scientifi- cally unskilled people, including the news media and politi- cians, involved in this debate, unsubstantiated claims are accepted without careful study. Instead, intuitive logic and highly selected correlations are taken as scientific proof, which of course they are not. Read More...
How galling that Tom Harris should dismiss climate change without citing a shred of evidence. He asserts "the period around 1970 was the coldest in the last 80 years in the U.S.," but conspicuously fails to note that this cooling was only 0.2 degrees, whereas from 1970 to 2005 there has been a temperature increase of 0.55 degrees. All of the preceding data come from the U.S. National Climate Data Centre.
He asserts "much of the data from cold rural stations was dropped out of the record in the early 1990s." No such statement can be taken seriously until, and unless, he gives the numbers and the source of the information. If anything, with the use of polar orbiting satellites and using radio telemetry for easier to access data from remote stations, the temperature record has never been better. Read More...
Asking the question in this poll as to whether or not Canadians "believe" in climate change is like asking them whether or not they believe in cancer. No one "believes" in cancer, but rather, people are convinced by the scientific evidence that cancer cells exist and that there are medical ways we can prevent their growth and remove them when they form tumours.
So, I don't "believe" in climate change, but I've read enough of the scientific evidence to understand that it is happening and that its effects will become more severe as carbon dioxide concentrations increase.
This is not a belief system that you either choose to believe or don't, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (no harm done if you believe in them). As Paul Hawken says, "If you look at the science about what is happening on Earth and aren't pessimistic, you don't understand data."
Teresa Posyniak, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
A news release from the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity last Wednesday began, "A poll released today shows that Canadians believe that climate change is happening and would be willing to pay for government policies that reverse or slow the damage." They continued, "Belief in climate change among Canadians substantially outpaces belief in this phenomenon among residents of the United States."
But that wasn't really what the survey showed -respondents were actually asked about somewhat different topics.
This was not explained by most of those reporting on the poll. For example, the CBC wrote, "Far more Canadians than Americans believe climate change is real, according to a report produced by U.S. and Canadian think tanks . . . In Canada, 80 per cent believe in the science behind climate change . . . ." Read More...
Re: "It's doable," Letter, Nov. 25.
I am a professional geophysicist, licensed to practise by APEGGA, in strict accordance with the APEGGA Code of Professional Practice. This code of practice prohibits geoscientists and engineers from making "false or misleading public statements," so anything that I state publicly in the capacity of a geophysicist is essentially made under oath, exposing me to repercussions for any "false or misleading statements." Read More...
The Globe and Mail
Sat, 27 Nov 2010
2010 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Nathan VanderKlippe is a FoGT apprentice!