I think the word you are looking for is credulous. You got that wrong. Among other things. Like Grade 9 physics. :lol:
I did. So the paper explaining why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas was not my work and the authors have been subject to peer review and they could find no error, and it's not at all unique. We want to use the mass of the atmosphere don't we? Rather than the weight. How often is the atmosphere weighed? Do you know if the atmospheres volume changes and if so what's the range? The black body thing does not apply to a physical body, they say. Where is our electrical accounting in your idea? Why is your science better than the science that feeds the guys I read?
The AAAS - Climate Change Causes Blurred Vision
The solar discharge has a very effective
feedback system to maintain steady radiant output while the electrical power input varies. In fact, the solar radiant energy is termed a “solar constant,” which is critical to the AGW argument.
However, no account is taken of the variable electrical power focused on the Sun but intercepted by the planets. The
electrical connections have been traced from the Sun to the Earth’s magnetosphere; from the magnetosphere to the ionosphere; and from the ionosphere into weather systems. No one can claim to be “a climate expert” while ignorant of the electrical nature of the solar system. This common energy source explains the reports of simultaneous warming on other planets. The Sun’s galactic power source is the main driver of climatic variability. Human carbon emissions count for nothing in comparison.
The AAAS - Climate Change Causes Blurred VisionSo what was it that
inspired the AAAS Board to put together what is essentially a shabby, ambiguous and misleading document? Janet Raloff of DiscoveryNews explains:
Together with marine scientist Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, in Washington D.C., Orbach introduced a resolution at the May board meeting of the AAAS asking for a formal condemnation of the public intimidation of climate researchers. When I asked him what had triggered the move, he pointed to a succession of events in recent years, including:
- a campaign by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli to obtain access to research data by former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann (now at Penn State). Cuccinelli said he wanted to prosecute Mann or his university under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act for misuse of state funds
- a petition by the American Tradition Institute (ATI) — a “free-market”-based think tank — demanding that the University of Virginia turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Mann
- ATI’s January 19, 2011, filing of a Freedom of Information Act request for NASA to hand over documents detailing “whether and how ‘global warming’ activist Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has complied with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and NASA Rules of Behavior”
- and news accounts of climate researchers receiving death threats in response to reports of their findings.
Aside from one newspaper article, from Australia no less (a
Canberra Times article is the sole citation relevant to "news accounts"), the entire motivation for the Board's statement appears to be a response to legally valid requests for information regarding the possible misappropriation of public funding. This appears to be political maneuvering, nothing more and nothing less, and hypocritical in the extreme. The hypocrisy becomes clearly apparent when one considers the Board's thinly veiled accusations against Attorney General Cuccinelli contained in their
first statement on what is essentially the same matter,
Statement Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia:
... Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation, unless based on a much more substantial body of evidence than is apparent, could inappropriately inhibit the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and thus limit the progress of science. ...
Do the Board seriously think
any Attorney General is going to launch an investigation based on thin air? And how could an investigation into the actions of
one scientist be construed as leading to the inhibition of free exchange of findings and limiting the progress of the
whole of science? Looks like even more blurring of those pesky lines of distinction.
... the manner in which this investigation is being conducted and the lack of a clear rationale for it suggest that the investigation may be aimed at something other than financial malfeasance. ...
*Waiting for the other shoe to drop* ...
... Unless more clearly justified, Attorney General Cuccinelli’s apparently political action should be withdrawn.
Ah, there it is. Accusing an Attorney General of abusing his position to gain political advantage is outrageous unless accompanied by substantial evidence, and should in itself be cause to launch an investigation into the integrity of the AAAS Board. Of course, the Board included "unless" and "apparently" to qualify their sentence, so as to make it not quite an accusation, thus it's the accusation you make when you're not making an accusation. Seems a bit blurry.
What possible political outcome could Cuccinelli be seeking in launching a baseless investigation? I suggest it would be "career suicide" for
any Attorney General to do such a thing.
And what of the AAAS and how it is now using its essentially public funds? Funded in large part by grants, dues and donations one wonders if is it appropriate for the AAAS to engage in this sort of political interference in what is a legal process and should be something viewed from the sidelines until the legalities are played out.
It's interesting to note that the second of their statements on this issue
shares a large number of phrases from their first statement. The first was a response to Cuccinelli's attempt to investigate Michael Mann. Now that more FOIA petitions are in action, they've just widened the scope of their first statement. They
claim to serve 10 million scientists yet the Board sees fit to spend its time producing statements relating to the records of just a handful of these 10 million. Remember we are not talking here of a letter or two in support of colleagues, but the management of a huge association spending time and effort to make official its support of a handful of scientists whose professional integrity is questioned. Surely they have better things to spend their time and money on than what is essentially propaganda.
It seems the whole climate change issue has severely blurred the vision of the AAAS.
d foisting of a politically motivated ideology upon the world in the guise of bogus science. Fortunately – for the time being at any rate – the canniness of the developing nations in demanding that the supposedly rational West literally put its money where its mouth was by playing out a lemming-like stampede to economic self-destruction brought home the absurdity to a degree that even our scientifically clueless best and brightest couldn't buy, and the whole thing largely came to nothing.
Claims that human activity was – or was even capable of – measurably affecting the Earth's climate made little sense to begin with. For as far back as patterns can be reconstructed, the climate has always cycled between being warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, stormy or settled, and the changes observed during the industrial era have been well inside the swings that have taken place in the past. So there's no reason to suppose that anything, human-induced or otherwise, is affecting the climate abnormally. Compared to water vapor and the activity of the Sun, carbon dioxide plays a minor role in determining temperature, and the amount generated by Nature dwarfs anything that humans add. In any case, the times of rising temperature recorded over the ages have all happened
first, not the other way around, so increases in CO2 levels are a consequence not a cause. And even if humans were having the influence that has been claimed, the results would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Living things thrive in warmer environments, not frigid ones. Far more people die in winter from the effects of cold than from heat waves. Carbon dioxide is plant food, the basis of all life. Crops and flora of every kind grow more luxuriantly with a richer supply of it. The big advances in human civilization, reflected in the rise of cultures and times of elevated expansion and exploration, inventiveness, agriculture, artistry, and science, all occurred in warmer climatic periods. Anyone who is sincere about praising the virtues of a "green" planet should love it.
(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
Shortly before Copenhagen, the suspicions that even superficial consideration of such points should have raised were confirmed beyond doubt with the revelations of collusion, going back years, among a cadre of climate researchers to manufacture a scientific case supporting a quasi-religious world view and presumption of the relationship between man and nature that is being given as the justification for measures that would impose drastic energy cutbacks and costly changes in living standards worldwide. The practices employed include massaging and falsification of data; suppression and destruction of conflicting evidence; rigging of computer models to deliver predetermined results; withholding of inform
DB ( there are several million pages of very good reading to be had on the controversial subject of human induced climate change all of them written by very smart people)DB
(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
For those who may have missed the controversy going on behind the scenes while the mainstream media are apparently doing their best to play it down, or have just returned from a vacation on Mars, a good overview by Paul Driessen is posted
here. But a couple of examples will give the idea:
[Click to enlarge] The figure above was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 1990 maiden assessment and shows the pattern of variation in the Earth's temperature over the previous thousand years that had been generally accepted up until then, based on data from such sources as tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores, and historic documents. It clearly depicts the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) of 900–1300 AD, when the Vikings maintained settlements and farms on the green coasts of Greenland and wine grapes grew in Scotland, and the "Little Ice Age" (LIA) that followed, centered on 1600 AD, in which winter fairs were held on London's frozen River Thames, and R. D. Blackmore's novel
Lorna Doone had trees on Dartmoor bursting with sounds like cannon shots under the pressure of internal ice. These periods are part of a series of natural cycles that go to greater extremes, such as one around six thousand years ago, when the Sahara was grassland watered by rivers, and southern England basked in subtropical luxuriance. (Humans and polar bears survived just fine.)
Ever since humans began turning applied intelligence in the form of technology to making life more secure, comfortable, and generally less burdensome, there has been a pervasive element among them who took it upon themselves to oppose and condemn what most were inclined to view as a bettering of their condition. There seems to be something akin to a religious guilt complex at work, in which the seeking of creature comforts and a reprieve from toil and drudgery is seen as sinful, and atonement calls for renouncing the benefits and returning to the rigors of a simpler but more virtuous, soul-cleansing life. (It's interesting to note that the guilt tends to be expressed primarily by the more affluent, articulate, and influential, whose own standards will be little affected by the sacrifices demanded of those who are supposed to do the atoning.)
Things reached a crescendo in the later decades of the twentieth century, when soaring productivity and such revolutionary innovations as affordable air travel and communications for the masses, and the prospect of unlimited energy threatened wanton iniquity exploding on a worldwide scale. Reactions from the righteous came swiftly with the campaigns to demonize DDT, pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals, and nuclear energy, and apocalyptic auguries of planetary destruction from exhaustion of the food supply (late 1960s); a carbon-burning-induced ice age (mid 1970s); jetliner exhausts, particularly the SST (late 1970s); depletion of the ozone layer (1980s). But of all the environmental alarms that were sounded and had their day, the banner issue to emerge, behind which all the disparate cohorts of doom and ruin rallied, was global warming.
For anyone with stakes in the manmade disaster business, it had everything going for it: lurid images of polar meltdown, drowning cities, and dried-up farmland; a threat of global dimensions that demanded coordinated global action, and hence the institution of a global policing authority that had long been the dream of those who would abolish sovereign nation states; limitless opportunities for tax-funded "further research" and worthy political causes; and all the usual suspects to blame for opponents of industrial civilization and the Western way of life in general. Frustrated academics and intellectuals with cravings for recognition but nothing to offer that anyone would vote for at the ballot box or freely spend their money on in the market place could become voices behind the throne and
make the world notice them. Even the villains of the piece had something to gain with the promise of enormous subsidies and tax incentives in return for diverting their efforts into environmentally friendly projects and "alternative" energy sources that had the one common attribute of being utterly incapable of supplying the needs of an advanced, technology-driven society, and likely to price energy – and hence just about everything else – beyond the means of most people in all but approved and rationed amounts.
Moreover, a believable mechanism by which man's nefarious actions, if left uncurbed, might heat the planet to the verge of spontaneous combustion was right there. All major industries and large-scale transportation systems depend ultimately on fuel burning, with the consequent release of carbon dioxide (apart from nuclear, but that had effectively been put on hold for the time being). Carbon dioxide contributes to the "greenhouse effect," the natural process by which the atmosphere keeps the Earth around 33°C warmer – and therefore inhabitable – than it would otherwise be at this distance from the Sun. Provided one didn't look too closely at the numbers, which showed things like CO2 being a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, and the bulk of it coming from natural sources such as oceanic outgassing, volcanic activity, and the byproducts of life and decomposition, CO2 could be presented as the principal mover, and human activity as the agency primarily responsible for generating it. In an age conditioned to accepting anything that comes out of a computer with uncritical awe and bedazzlement – Garbage In, Gospel Out – the next best thing to a infallible papal pronouncement on the veracity of the theory as an article of faith could be produced in the form of complex computer models with the appropriate assumptions and outcome built-in.
It was the perfect formula. A universal gravy train. The Great Social Equalizer – although some would remain more equal than others. The road to power of truly totalitarian dimensions. . . . There was only one small thing wrong. The record of temperatures past said that the Earth had already been through variations greater than anything that could be coaxed out of CO2-driven computer models while humans were still depending on sailing ships and water wheels, and nothing remarkable had come of it.
In an
article that appeared recently in
American Thinker, Marc Sheppard describes the astonishment, in 1995, of a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma on receiving an e-mail from a leading figure in climate change research that said,
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” And they did.
[Click to enlarge] This is the version of the temperature record that appears in the IPCC's 2001 Assessment, and is particularly stressed in the Summary for Policymakers, the highly-politicized synopsis that is all that most of the people making decisions that affect the lives of millions read, and which commands the bulk of media attention. It's the curve that has come to be known as the "Hockey Stick," from its shape of temperatures fluctuating about a fairly level mean implicitly for millennia, and turning upward sharply around the beginning of the twentieth century to mark the commencement of an unprecedented increase coincident with the growth of human population and industrialization. The construction merges data from a number of sources, applying certain statistical procedures – which in itself is not unusual when normalizing large data sets – and subjecting the result to various "corrections," said to compensate for biases and drifts.
Challenges from skeptics followed immediately on grounds of both the validity of the data used and the methodology employed. Sinc
DB ( the material raises and addresses every concievable angle of the climate change fraud in great details, I'll stop short of the million pages)DB
Why are the political establishment scientist superior to the disinterested variety?
Hence, the only period for which both CO2 and temperature happened to be rising together is the twenty-odd years from the late seventies to the late nineties. As far as any evidence goes, this is the entire case for manmade global warming and all the panic that has ensued because of it.
We are told that consensus among the world's scientists has put the subject beyond further debate. But something that the mainstream media have been largely silent about is that more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, have signed an
appeal addressed to the world's leaders expressing grave reservations and calling for policymaking to be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.
“The greatest evils which stalk our Earth,” they state,
“are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself.” If consensus is to be the measure, then that's three times the number of experts cited by the UN IPCC; and even these turn out to be mostly political representatives or graduates in the humanities, with no training in the philosophy or methods of science.
Over 34,000 scientists have signed a
petition saying there is no convincing evidence that gases released through human activity pose any threat to the future.
Nevertheless