Impossible To See

*



Global warming hysteria: the pendulum has swung
Thursday, 8 May 2008, 10:21 am
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

From the NZ Climate Science Coalition

Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming.

At this news, the rare balanced commentaries that hitherto have been but a trickle through cracks in the monolithic dam of climate alarmism have coalesced into a steady, fissured flow, and there is an imminent likelihood of total dam collapse. Interestingly, at the same time, the fierce discussion about the pros and cons of dangerous human-caused change that has formerly been conducted almost exclusively on the internet (including particularly blogs and video outlets like YouTube) is starting to spread to the more mainstream press.

For instance, critical analyses of global warming science reality and policy options have recently been provided by two leading articles in the National Business Review (editorial 1; editorial 2 ) and others on Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research website and in the NZ Herald, Christchurch Press, NZ Farmers Weekly and the U.K. Telegraph.

Finally, and most belatedly of all, even radio and TV commentators are now starting to provide a broader and better balanced perspective on the global warming issue.

Nzone Tonight is a nightly news and current affairs programme broadcast by Shine TV, a NZ Christian broadcaster that aims to provide a balanced and truthful review of all the day's news suitable for family viewing. In mid-April, Nzone broadcast a current affairs discussion about global warming between host Alan Lee and Professor Bob Carter. Since being posted on YouTube, this video has attracted 15,000 worldwide viewers, and during its first three weeks has become the most viewed, most discussed and most favorited - and the number two top rated - New Zealand News and Politics video clip of the month. Amongst other supportive comment, one US viewer noted that “I did enjoy the respectful nature of the interview. I do wish this interview was shown on every network in this country, and at every school!”

That these events represent a deep public demand for balanced presentations of the science of climate change is indicated by another Bob Carter video clip - this time of a lecture to the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) that was posted on YouTube just over 6 months ago. To date this video clip has achieved more than 100,000 viewers and lists as the 14th most discussed Australian News and Politics item of all time - a remarkable result, and by far the highest ranking that a fact-based lecture has ever achieved.

Comments made on the AEF video lecture have included:

“That was a superb set of videos. Very well done, and thank you, Bob Carter. Should be compulsory viewing for everyone who sees Gore's movie. Any chance of getting (it) into all British schools?”; and

“Watching Bob Carter's presentation, which he has articulated in a no nonsense manner, I am alarmed at how the so-called environmental movement, supported by sensational journalism, are promoting such an alarmist position on CO2 emissions. It is a frightening prospect that money which could be spent on far more sensible issues may well be wasted on carbon sequestration, which apparently will have little or even no effect on climate change”.

For a science lecture to receive comments such as these, and attain such a large number of viewings, is indicative of a great public hunger for accurate, well balanced information on the science of the global warming issue.

Perhaps, at last, the time has arrived when YouTube and blog discussions will now be supplemented by mainstream newspaper, radio and TV outlets providing the balanced news and documentary programs about global warming that have been so lamentably lacking for the last ten years. Keep your eye on that dam.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0805/S00122.htm



You only have to get on the web for five minutes to realise that he science of global warming is far from settled, and the debate has been hi-jacked by the left to prosecute their many bugbears. Surely if a politician is loudly declaring a new crisis that can only be solved by higher taxes and greater government control the alarm bells would go off everywhere. Apparently not. If I mentioned that I'm far from convinced, indeed could even be a sceptic, people look at you as a Neanderthal. After all, isn't this the same bloke who dared to not accept feminism as another modern religion, but wanted to query whether the institutions riddled with its ideology, including family courts, child support and child protection agencies, were fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally corrupt.

But hey, call me a curmudgeon, what would I know. But my point is what would any normal lay person know. The debate is beyond us all. We don't know. None of us are climatologists. But neither is Kevin Rudd. Or Penny Wong. Or Ross Garnaut. And they spin and they spin, pretending to represent the common man while all the time they represent their old socialist forebears. Australia is veering towards being a communist state at a rapid rate; the control expanding ever further, doubt ever more frequently criticised.

What rubbish, they say, as they mount the curb, climbing on to their high moral ground. For the good of the planet, for the good of us all. We scream and we cry and we carry on; and all is darkness in the thrashing of belief. Sometimes we move quickly, sometimes slow. We gather our forces and we wait. We gird our loins, so to speak, preparing for the next Depression, preparing for the dark shadows moving across the country, the increasing despair. We take the left as gospel and the right as lunatics, and we plough on. But the trouble for my generation is we've seen too much; too many of the things we believed in no longer exist, or turned out not to be true.

I'm shattered, he said, their breaths breathing together in the thick cloying steam of the sauna. Shadows moved just out of reach. There was a gasp of pleasure. Obscene smells. Scenes of Roman style decadence. And then the diseases hit, and spread, and it looked almost as if the Christians had been right after all, homosexuality was an abomination to the Lord and we would all pay for our sins. It seemed so unfair. These people had been so bold, pioneers of a lifestyle, the frantic laughs that ricocheted through the bars. Oh how he had longed for love, for oblivion, for the warmth of something, someone, who could fill his aching heart.

Instead, of course, the hangovers were legion and the outcomes unsatisfactory. We drank for company and ended up alone. We drank for adventure and ended up staring at a wall. We drank for enjoyment and ended up sad. It was all predictable, but in the midst of that astonishing odyssey impossible to see. We didn't realise what was happening to us, or our friends. We didn't realise how common our tale was, our little band of adventurers, stumbling through the doors of that Paddington terrace in the early hours of the morning, drunk, always drunk, stepping carefully over the bodies that lay sleeping in the lounge room, anywhere they could find a spot.

We were the future, we were going to make things great, change the world forever. No more conservatives. No more dreary right wing ideologues. Gough Whitlam, now in his 90s and reportedly on his death bed, was our hero, the man who banished the conservatives to the back benches where they belonged. So stifling, so dull had been the country until we came along. Clambering up those moss covered walls, like latter day Spider men, we were destined to overcome all that had been before.

Terminal uniqueness, they call it now, after the trail of chaos that we left, the dead, the mad, the sick. No one has aged well, no one. I'm one of the only ones who not only lived to see another day, but ended up with a mainstream job and even some occasional fragments of success. All was not lost. We gathered all these strands of experience together and forged a new art; created a new story. But it was nothing like the story we thought we were writing, living, creating, there in those hallucinogenic dawns, the gorgeous hews of sunrise lighting up the Paddington terraces, every minute detail amplified with bliss, every sound of the morning birds and the cats fighting and our lone inner-city rooster crowing; we truly thought we were destined for great things.




http://mptv.com.au/av/2008/0725Climate/audio.php

CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE HOTTING UP

The Chairman of the New England Nationals, Bryan Pape, said today “that the Nationals and the Page Research Centre have gathered a cohort of eminent scholars to debate the validity of climate change research.”

“The disconnect between science and policy on this issue is unbelievable.” Professor Bob Carter, Adjunct Research Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory & School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University. He added that CO2 is not the primary forcing agent for temperature change, rather CO2 is an overall benefice for humankind.” Professor Carter outlined 6 tests of the hypothesis “that CO2 causes global warming” and the global warming thesis failed on all 6 tests.

Mr William Kininmonth, a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, Australian Delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology and author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (2004), refuted the warming argument by stating that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 PPM in the atmosphere will have very little effect on global warming. He added runaway global warming was a complete myth. In reality, carbon dioxide from modern industry and agriculture has only limited influence on climate but has significant benefits for plant growth.

Other contributors to the debate included Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology in the University of Adelaide and author of A Short History of Planet Earth (2001), Dr Alan Moran, Director Regulation Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs.

Dr Paul Collits, a Research Fellow of the Page Research Centre closed the forum by saying the task for the Nationals moving forward was to further the debate and seek clarification on the substantive issues including an ETS and CO2 emissions targets.




Product Description
Book Description
Tells the shocking stories of more than three-dozen world-renowned scientists whose work refutes global warming hysteria and gives the lie to claims from Al Gore and co. that “the science is settled.” Author Lawrence Solomon—an internationally renowned environmentalist—shows these men have faced a vicious campaign of intimidation by those who, like Al Gore, seek to pervert science and silence dissent to advance their own political agenda. Some have been intimidated into silence. Others have seen their funding denied and their labs shut down as a result of political pressure. But the testimony of their work remains too powerful to deny.Extensively footnoted including URLs to crucial scientific papers (and lively e-mails detailing the inside politics of global warming) and lavishly illustrated with charts and graphs, The Deniers will do more than spark controversy. The Deniers is destined to become the most reliable and provocative sourcebook on the real global warming debate.

http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

The Deniers

From the Publisher

What persuaded me to publish Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers was the stunning array of scientist skeptics he assembled. I guess Al Gore never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman—former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic. Dr. David Bromwich—president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology—says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.” Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Prof. Hendrik Tennekes—former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute—states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts. Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” Dr. Antonino Zichichi—one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter—calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.” Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski—world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research—says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.” Prof. Tom V. Segalstad—head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo—says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.” Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.” Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says “the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent." Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Prof. Freeman Dyson—one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.” Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon’s devastating new book,The Deniers

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/21/climate-funnies-tax-fitness-fanatics-needless-burning-calories

Here's a novel idea: in order to save the world from global warming, people who regularly exercise should have to pay a carbon tax for their selfish and egotistical burning of extra calories.

Sound crazy?

Well, as "Freakonomics" co-author Steven D. Levitt satirically laid out in a New York Times piece Tuesday, this actually makes about as much sense as any of the other absurd solutions being proposed by the likes of Nobel Laureate Al Gore (emphasis added):

A recent Lancet article argued that obesity is contributing to global warming because the obese consume more calories. Since making food releases carbon, that means an obese person, on average, is worse for global warming than a skinny person. [...]

[I]f we want to blame the obese for global warming, those who engage in recreational exercise like jogging or biking for pleasure should surely be discouraged from doing so because of global warming.

Someone who jogs an hour per day burns an extra 1,000 calories daily … far more than an obese person. Such wasteful burning of calories must be discouraged if we are to save the planet.

I hereby call for the next president of the United States to pass legislation imposing a carbon tax of 10 cents per hour on all recreational burning of calories. To save the planet, we must encourage people to sit at home and burn as few calories as possible.