January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

Monday, January 2nd 2012, 4:14 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy….(Full Story)

After I had posted the link to that article to my Facebook wall, someone commented:

That looks like a quality site. Interesting that only land-based temperature sensors show a rise in temperature and not sea or atmospheric sensors. Could the rise be because of the rise in concrete? Cities act like storage heaters and are always a bit warmer, if the thermometers are nearer cities then there is your answer.

Yes, concrete in cities has a lot to do with hot and somewhat rising land-surface temperature records, but that is not all.  The circumstances involved are complicated.  Here is my response to the man:

Yes, it not only looks like but it is a respectable website. It presents primarily the views of skeptics who do not deny that there is a warming trend in global temperatures but who are doubtful that much of the increase of about 0.7 degrees C during the past century was caused by anything that was done by people.

Your question deserves a long answer, and it is essential that before and after reading all of this comment by me, you have a look at some of the graphs and comments shown at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150216691769443.332265.591619442&type=3
They strongly relate to many of the issues discussed in the following.

The vast majority of skeptical climate scientists feels very strongly that our sun, a variable star, modulates climate trends on Earth. They should know. Most of them had long careers in climate sciences, meteorology and such. Fred Singer, for example, the author of the lead-in article in this discussion thread, has very respectable credentials.

He, “…(born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

About concrete, roofs, parking lots, etc. in urban areas affecting temperature trends, yes, they do. A very large number of official temperature measurements are being taken in weather stations that are in urban areas or at airports. About 0.5% of the global land surface is considered to be urban. A very disproportionately-large portion of weather stations is located in urban locations. It would be ludicrous to assume that all of the temperature values measured at those stations are representative of or close to global, average temperature values, however one may decide how such a hypothetical global average can be accurately determined.

The effect that the urban environment has on temperature values is real, it has been measured, and allowances and adjustments have been made for it in the official temperature record — with frequent revisions as the debate of the effect progressed from initial denial to tacit acceptance. It is called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

One of a number of research studies targeting the UHI effect addressed California. The results from that study support what you surmise. The issue of the UHI in California is very well illustrated by this graph: http://prntscr.com/4sm9m
(quoted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-phil-jones-calling-a-scientist-the-jerk-over-his-uhi-discoveries-in-calfifornia/ )

There is much disagreement between climate scientists who consider their science in constant need of refinement (something that applies to all true science) and those who oppose them and insist that mankind is to be blamed for the current global warming — even though there have been many and often much greater intervals of global warming throughout human history, long before any SUVs were even a gleam in the eyes of automakers, even long before there was any industrialization at all, not only on earth but even on other planets of the solar system.

The one camp feels that correlations exists between hundreds and thousands of aspects of the incredibly complex global climate system. They seek to measure all possible climate factors and to gain an understanding of the roles they play, their correlations and of the mechanisms that drive them.

The other camp feels that the global climate is essentially stable and would remain stable if it were not for mankind mucking things up. They seek to build computer models that are to game their theories, with the outcomes being hoped for to match what their theories predict, even though reality increasingly diverges from the predictions that result from those theories.

There is a much, much better correlation between the variations of solar radiance and global temperature variations than there is between global atmospheric CO2 trends and temperature trends.

While the mechanisms that make the sun such a large influence on global climate are being increasingly better understood, global temperature trends have miserably failed to come even close to reaching the enormously escalating temperature increases that the proponents of the man-made global warming theory had insisted on predicting. In fact, while atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising (quite likely as a result of the Sun’s influence and increasing solar activity since the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850 and before), global temperature trends have remained flat for the last decade.

Puny man remains puny, and there is little reasonable doubt that the climate on Earth is driven, dominated and controlled by the largest source of energy in our solar system, our sun. Mankind’s influence appears to be pocket change in the enormously large, astoundingly complex and nested systems of energy flows affecting climate on Earth. Nevertheless, the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming promote their beliefs with religious zeal and, in the name of “the precautionary principle”, pursue their goals that cost many trillions of dollars and the systematic deconstruction of the economies of the developed nations.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

You decide whether global warming is a problem, globally or where you live.

Latest Global Temperatures as of Dec. 2011
By Dr. Roy Spencer

11-Year Weather Trends at Elk Island National Park
(from 2001 01 01 to 2012 01 01)

From that:

Posted in Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

November 5, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In October 2011, the Alberta Government launched a massive advertising campaign promoting the idea that billions of dollars of tax revenues and increased electricity rates (which climbed in October to about 12.5 cents per kWh for residential consumers) are needed to achieve “carbon” capture and sequestration (that is: “storage”), in an attempt to have Alberta do its part in regulating global climate trends.

First of all, the “carbon” in carbon capture and sequestration is a misnomer, because what is supposed to be captured is not carbon but carbon-dioxide, plain, old CO2, a benign, harmless trace gas that is essential to all life on Earth and without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been measured regularly and systematically since 1959.  Some people, some of whom are scientists, assert that global temperature trends are being affected and even controlled and driven by atmospheric CO2 levels. That assertion is not supported by hard evidence.  At best, nothing more can be said about it than that it is a theory for which the science is not settled.  It is supported only by computer models.

Computer models will say what they are designed to say, and the adage about computers, “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out), applies with a vengeance to computer models.  No scientific evidence exists that proves that atmospheric CO2 levels are a controlling factor in global temperature trends.

On the other hand, a good many scientific facts relating to CO2 have been established and are supported by real world measurements, such as,

1. There is no correlation between rising temperature trends and increasing CO2 levels.
2. In 1998, the global temperature trend levelled off and can even be said to have fallen a bit, while atmospheric CO2 increased since then to about 392 parts per million or about four hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere.
3. Man-made CO2 emissions comprise only about three percent of total atmospheric CO2.  The other 97 percent of atmospheric CO2 originate from natural sources.
4. Plants will stop growing when atmospheric CO2 reaches a level of 200 parts per million and will begin to die off when the CO2 level falls to 150 parts per million.
5. The rising CO2 levels during the last thirty years have helped along the greening of the planet and increased agricultural productivity (e.g.; by about 25 percent in China).  In reality, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have helped substantially to alleviate world hunger.

The truth about CO2 emissions is not wanted by those who spend our money.  Indeed, some people try to oppress it!  Good luck with that.  The advent of the Internet has made it practically impossible to suppress the truth, but the Alberta Government’s CCS propaganda campaign makes it obvious that good, old propaganda tactics are alive and well.  There are just fewer people now who will be willing to swallow government-sponsored lies than there were, say, during the Hitler era.

John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud

Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101, was  terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles  published over a two-year period with them ar….(Full Story)

In  case you missed the link to it in John O’Sullivan’s article, the  observations offered here are fairly straight-forward and easy to  understand:

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West

Well, in a somewhat bizarre twist, it looks like I must reconsider my opposition to CO2 reparations. The notion that the evil sources of CO2 “pollution” must pay those who are lowering the planet’s CO2 levels….(Full Story)

So,  guess what! If we believe that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of  catastrophic global warming, then let’s do the best thing possible to  ameliorate the problem.  Let’s make sure that the underdeveloped and  developing nations acquire the same living standard as achieved by the  developed nations, and the problem will go away all by itself.

However, if anyone wishes to put his money where his mouth is with his climate change superstitions and wants to spend billions of dollars implementing measures for amelioration of catastrophic global warming, let him do it with his own money, at the source and not here where it will do no good.  However, if he wants to spend that much money to do some good for humanity where he lives, let him spend it on fixing things that need fixing, such as our health-care system.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Corruption & Fraud, Electric Energy Prices, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

September 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Reason Foundation

Extreme Weather Events Are Killing Fewer People Than Ever Before

The worldwide death rate from weather happenings has dropped over 98 percent since the 1920s

September 22, 2011

Despite concerns about global warming and a large increase in the number of reported storms and droughts, the world’s death rate from extreme weather events was lower from 2000 to 2010 than it has been in any decade since 1900, according to a new Reason Foundation study….(Full Story) *

So, why all this doom and gloom, the hype and hysteria about the ostensible catastrophic, man-made global warming?

__________
* Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indur_M._Goklany

The graph identified here was provided in a posting by Indur Goklany at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

August 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

 The (polar) bear facts

www.nypost.com

It was a cold month in hell for global-warming alarmists.

Speaking for George Soros…$720,000 from him alone produces a lot of fervor. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows

canadafreepress.com

You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows, Violent ideological Weathermen, an increasingly overwrought Weatherman teetering on the edge of insanity, and finally, we’ll meet a Weatherman paid to produce skewed meteorological results.

The Money Trail — Does Big Oil fund climate research? Yes, but for every dollar that goes to fund the research by climate skeptics more than a thousand dollars go to fund the work of people who spread alarm and concern about global warming and climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashe​d/33114.html

www.abc.net.au

The pot calling the kettle black…

http://sppiblog.org/news/david​-suzuki-insults-but-won%E2%80%​99t-debate

Australian truckers can’t take it anymore. They’re gonna have themselves a convoy, a few convoys…

Let them truckers roll down under, 10-4

wattsupwiththat.com

From The Australian, the beginning of a nationwide convoy protesting the carbon tax. I’m sure the delicate sensibilities of the ruling class in Canberra, most of which don’t know the meaning of act…

The”emperor” does not wear clothes.

Why Al Gore Is A Failure: Part One

www.businessinsider.com

Sometimes the truth really is inconvenient.

So, what is the problem with increasing energy consumption? Increasing energy consumption and raising living standards for all will curb population growth, thereby curb unchecked energy consumption… Presto. Problem solved!

Solving Climate Change - Forbes

www.forbes.com

There are, as you will have noticed, a number of different views around how we go about solving climate change. From those who think it’s all nonsense and my, hasn’t Al Gore got fat? to those who insist that only the immediate overthrow of capitalism, the return of medieval peasantry, […]

“Verdict: The science of climatology is seriously compromised and broken. Spread this video to anyone you can think of.” P. Gosselin ( http://notrickszone.com/2011/0​8/08/new-video-seriously-indic​ts-climatology-science/ )

A Peer-Reviewed Deception

www.youtube.com

Deconstructing Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism and the myth of ‘peer-review’. http://skepticdenialism.blogsp​ot.com/2011/06/peer-reviewed-d​eception.html…

Posted in Climate Craziness, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

July 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Weather extremes? You think we have weather extremes? Have a look at this:

A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events

By James A. Masurek (2010)

The chronology covers weather events from the years 0 to 1900 A.D.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/weather.pdf (9.4 MB)
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com

The following quotes from the chronology show just a few instances of warm weather when no one yet dreamed of “carbon” taxes, cap and trade or emission trading schemes to vacuum money out of our pockets:

582 A.D. In 582 in Western Europe, the heat of during the winter caused the trees to bloom in the month January. This month also was filled with violent rain, lightning and thunder.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

Winter of 583 / 584 A.D. The winter [in Europe] was of such persistent gentleness; that in the month of January one could see roses.62 (Ibid. p. 20)

In 584 the month of January in Western Europe produced roses. This was followed by a white frost, a hurricane and several disastrous incidents of hail that ravaged successive harvests of crops and vineyards. At the same time there was an excessive drought. The year produced almost no grapes. Desperate farmers delivered their vines at the mercy of the herds. But the trees, which had already borne fruit in July, producing a new crop in September, and some even bore again in December, and the vines offered at the same time well-formed clusters.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

586 A.D. [Because of the warm weather] in Western Europe the trees blossomed in the month of July 585 [586?], bloom again in September 586 and a large number of these who had already borne fruit produced a second crop of fruit until the Christmas holidays.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

However, just a few years later, this is what happened:

Winter of 603 / 604 A.D. In 604 in Scotland there was four months of frost, followed by dearth [famine]. The frost was also severe in England.47, 93

[In Europe] in 604, there was the most severe rigorous winter. The [grape] vines mostly died in all places. The Sea was frozen, and killed the fishes in it. This produced a great famine.72

The unusual cold of the year 603 in Western Europe killed much of the vineyards.79

(Ibid. p. 21)

Still, all of that was not so bad, compared to what happened just a few years later.

642 A.D. The winter in Europe was severe. The Black Sea was frozen. There were snowdrifts 90 feet (27 meters) deep.28 (Ibid. 22)

Still, things got worse:

Winter of 763 / 764 A.D. In the same year (763 A.D.), it was bitterly cold after the beginning of October, not only in our land, but even more so to the east, west, and north. Because of the cold, the north shore of the Black Sea froze to a depth of 30 cubits (~ 45 feet) a hundred miles out. This was so from Ninkhia to the Danube River, including the Kouphis, Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers, the Nekrophela, and the remaining promontories all the way to Mesembria and Medeia. Since the ice and snow kept on falling, its depth increased another twenty cubits (~ 30 feet), so that the sea became dry land. It was traveled by wild men and tame beasts from Khazaria, Bulgaria, and the lands of other adjacent people.

By divine command, during February of the same (764 A.D.) second indication the ice divided into a great number of mountainous chunks. The force of the wind brought them down to Daphnousia and Hieron, so that they came through the Bosporos to the city (Constantinople or Istanbul) and all the way to Propontis, Abydos, and the islands, filling every shore. We ourselves were an eyewitness and, with thirty companions, went out onto one of them and played on it. The icebergs had many dead animals, both wild and domestic, on them. Anyone who wanted to could travel unhindered on dry land from Sophianai to the city and from Chrysopolis to St. Mamas or Galata. One of these icebergs was dashed against the harbor of the acropolis, and shattered it. Another mammoth one smashed against the wall and badly shook it, so that the houses inside trembled along with it. It broke into three pieces, which girdled the city from Magnaura to the Bosporos, and was taller than the walls. All the city’s men, women, and children could not stop staring at the icebergs, then went back home lamenting and in tears, at a loss as to what to say about this phenomenon. (Theophanes the Confessor).3

Around Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey), the two seas frozen.47, 93

In the winter of 762 A.D., the Dardanelles and Black Sea were frozen over, and snow drifted to an astonishing depth of 50 feet (15 meters).1 [misprint for 763 A.D.] (Ibid. p. 25)

Do you think that those wide swings from one extreme to another, from extreme heat to extreme cold in the space of a few years and even months could have been caused by fluctuations in industrial emissions of CO2, by wide and catastrophic variations in the numbers of SUVs that were manufactured and sold?

Weather extremes have always happened and will continue to happen. The only thing that will ensure our survival is to be prepared for when they happen. To cripple our economy through insane and futile attempts to regulate the climate when we are not even close to understanding how our climate functions is exactly the wrong thing to do. That will ensure nothing more than that when the need to adapt to weather extremes arises, we will have made sure that we do not have the means necessary by which to adapt.

Lemmings come to mind, and this is what lemmings do:

700 A.D. In England and Ireland, there was a famine and pestilence during three years, “so that men ate each other”.57, 91

In 700, our Saxon ancestors being yet heathens were plagued with such severe famine for three years together, that many died of hunger. And in Sussex, England many were so tormented with it, that sometimes groups of 40 people would get up on the rocks by the seaside and throw themselves down headlong into the sea and were drowned.72 (Ibid. p. 24)

Posted in The New World Order, Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | 2 Comments »

June 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Some recent energy articles of interest

By John Droz, Jr.

An interesting article appeared in a wind industry trade journal: “Is Wind Energy The New Wedge Issue For Conservatives?”
( http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7757 ).

Some of the comments are: “The acrimony is being powered by a combination of small-government conservatives who see wind and other renewables as a waste of money and by others who consider wind a technology that will never be as effective as oil, coal or natural gas.” In other words people are objecting to wind energy as it is expensive and ineffective. Imagine that!

And there is this from the comptroller of Texas (a very pro-wind state): “wind is an expensive boondoggle that does not produce jobs”.

Note that the industry does not respond with proof that these positions are wrong, but rather tries to dismiss them as being political…
—————————–

A wonderful assessment of wind energy by an energy expert http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/05/26/fitting-wind-onto-the-electricity-grid-part-2/ .

A VERY promising development where New Jersey is dropping out of the RGGI program http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-statement-on-gov-chris-christies-plans-to-remove-new-jersey-from-rggi/ . Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the other member states.

Renewables Laws Changing is a positive development compared to the prior RPS mandates
http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/11/05/renewables-laws-changing .

Some good comments by the governor of Maine about a more sensible position on renewables
http://waldo.villagesoup.com/column/columnpost/weekly-radio-address/400386 .

A new MIT study has some unique perspectives on the economics of wind energy http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/6317 .

“Oil ‘subsidy’ and ‘tax breaks’ nonsense” gives a superior overview to this contentious issue:
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9598/pub_detail.asp

“The Politics of Alternative Energy 1: The Myth of Viable Industrial-scale Renewable Energy”:
“‘Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.’ Winston Churchill’s dictum could have been coined for the green advocates of the renewable energy revolution; a revolution that demonstrates a thorough-going disconnect between the political rhetoric and a grasp of the physics and economics vital to energy realism.” http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7616/The-Politics-of-Alternative-Energy-1–The-Myth-of-Viable-Industrial-scale-Renewable-Energy

“Inconvenient Truths about Renewable Energy”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576327410322365714.html?KEYWORDS=energy#printMode .

Another Real Estate professional speaks out saying that wind projects can bring down home values 25 to 40 percent — for as much as 2 miles away: http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=35521 .

In a fascinating development a Spanish judge orders a wind project to be dismantled
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/18/wind-farm-ordered-dismantled/ .

“NY Wind: Much Ado About So Little” http://www.windaction.org/faqs/31912 .

One of the key facts to focus on is that there is no such thing as wind energy by itself. This article makes that very point
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/12/11/wind-power-is-gas-power-and-comes-with-pollution/ .

The Australian government is revisiting the wind acoustic issue. The good news is that some of the presenters at their discussion are actually qualified scientists who contend that there are serious human consequences to wind development. See http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/june-6-2011-645-pm-ny-city-time/ .

Green Energy costs 1500 jobs http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/247946/EU-push-for-green-energy-costs-another-1-500-jobs .

Why do we need to choose between nuclear and renewables — we don’t:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/27/why-choose-nuclear-renewable-energy .

“Everything you’ve heard about fossil fuels may be wrong” talks extensively about wind energy
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels .

A good letter about Yucca mountain and the US economic benefits of nuclear energy http://tinyurl.com/3pcmyrk .

Some recent global warming articles of interest —

“Former ‘alarmist’ scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ .

“Germany’s green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy - both nationally and internationally.” http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article13396336/Wir-rutschen-Hals-ueber-Kopf-in-die-Oekodiktatur.html .

A fine discussion of Patrick Moore and the religion of environmentalism
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/5/the-personal-costs-of-spurning-green-misanthropy .

“The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science” (Vaclav Klaus): http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830 .

Thank you for your support.

john droz jr.,
physicist & environmental advocate

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, The New World Order, Energy Newsletter, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources, Fines & Penalties, Climate Change, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

May 20, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Some recent energy articles of interest

By John Droz, Jr.

In a shockingly honest assessment, the head of the NYS agency promoting offshore wind, now publicly admits that it’s a bad idea:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110503/NEWS01/105030346/Michael-Townsend-doubts-viability-offshore-wind-farms

A fine list that dispels the myths about the “anti-wind” campaign http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/33662

An extremely pertinent report is this worldwide study comparing energy use to several other important matters (e.g. infant mortality rate, GDP, literacy rate, etc.) http://www.aeaiinc.com/reports/Energy_and_Country_Instability.pdf

A Spanish community voted to pass a “visual impact” tax on wind turbines (1.6% of their generated income) http://www.windpowermonthly.com/News/MostRead/1061498/Spanish-region-imposes-visual-impact-tax-turbines/

Wind Power’s Promises Gone Awry, written by a NY physicist http://www.empirepage.com/2011/4/26/promises-and-predictions-gone-awry

A new book “The False Promise of Green Energy” http://www.cato.org/store/books/false-promise-green-energy

Obama on Energy: Inconsistent, Incoherent http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7290/Obama-on-Energy-Inconsistent-Incoherent

Very promising news: government financial support of Cape Wind project now in doubt
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110513/NEWS11/110519876

The official UK’s government’s climate advisory panel (made up mostly of environmental activists) recently concluded that building nuclear was the way to go: http://tinyurl.com/3s6ydep

A reasonable discussion of nuclear radiation, written by an environmentalist
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/the-dangers-of-nuclear-power-in-light-of-fukushima/

A good article, with graphics, about Small Modular Reactors http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/small-modular-reactors-smaller-and-cheaper/.

Other worthwhile discussions of the same topic

• http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-new-debate-fukushima-and-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/73084/
• http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-save.html
• http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-Small-Modular-Nuclear-Reactors.html

“Lots of Dirty Things Have To  Happen to Make Clean Energy” touches on some of the environmental downsides of wind energy
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/ron-arnold-lots-dirty-things-have-happen-make-clean-energy

Some recent global warming articles of interest

George Manbiot is one of the leading environmentalists on the planet. Recently he wrote two introspective columns about the environmental movement, and how it has gone wrong. For an environmentalist, he makes some amazingly candid observations:

part 1 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/02/the-lost-world/

part 2 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/

In my view, the main failing of his commentaries is that he doesn’t see the solution. It’s this:

Any and all environmental solutions must be truly SCIENCE-based. To date they have instead been POLITICAL agendas.  If the environmental movement adopted real science (not things like consensus science) then environmental progress would happen.

A fine article about AGW and the Scientific Method http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/scientific-method

All you need to know about AGW http://www.theblogofrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/global-warming-cartoon-the-rent-seekers-dream-come-true1.jpg

“The Ten Major Failures of Consensus Science” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/10_major_consensus_failures.pdf

A new good website about the fallacy of AGW  http://www.galileomovement.com.au

Thank you for your support.

john droz jr.,

physicist & environmental advocate

Posted in Energy Newsletter, Propaganda debunked, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

March 4, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Global warming trends are not coupled to atmospheric CO2.

Check this:

ICECAP
Mar 02, 2011

“Scientists” Pull a Snow Job on Reporters in Teleconference
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

The article states, amongst many other interesting facts,

….Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”

CO2 has nothing at all to do with it. Cold open arctic waters serve as a major sink of CO2 just as the warm tropical waters serve as a source.  Roger Pielke Sr. suggests the ocean heat content (OHC) as a more robust measure of temperature trends. Models suggest OHC should be rising rapidly as the greenhouse gases build, especially in the tropics. Here is the buoy based OHC in the top 300 meters of the equatorial from NOAA (between 5 degrees north and south of the equator) Pacific from 130 E to 80W. During El Niños, the eastern half is warm and the west cool, in La Niñas the eastern half is cool and the western warm. The fact there is not net warming, instead actually a slight cooling of the entire belt may the most damning proof that global warming is nothing more than a government funded political campaign.

Read the whole article at http://www.icecap.us/.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

February 19, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Is it worth spending billions of dollars to try and stave off impending gloom and doom allegedly caused by catastrophic trends in climate change?  Consider the following.

Climate Realists

FRED SINGER
What do Climate Data Really Show? The Berkeley Climate Data Project
Saturday, February 19th 2011, 9:25 AM EST

The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia in November 2009 produced what is popularly called “Climategate.” They exposed the thoroughly unethical behavior of a group of climate scientists, mainly in the UK and US, involved in producing the global surface temperature record used and relied on by governments….(Full Story)

________________
Fred Singer mentions in his article:

I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications.

Here is a link to the “revealing work by Anthony Watts”, the Surfacestations Project.  I won’t presume whom Fred Singer means by “and others”, but he also mentioned “Climategate”.

If the term “Climategate” is new to you, you may wish to look up a good historical overview of Climategate’s emergence into public view and of its resulting consequences.

When reading all of that about climate data and Climategate, keep in mind that we are engaging in a program of massive expenditures to address “fixes that the global climate needs” on the basis of alarmist and propagandistic findings of climate science that is at best not settled.

It is not a trivial problem for anyone in the world who pays the rising prices for the ability to use modern conveniences in everyday life. The costs of utilities and consumer goods experience enormous increases to help pay to implement climate fixes that are at best useless and at worst harmful and to help provide enormous profits from the resulting “solutions”.

Right now, the Alberta Government, under the leadership of Ed Stelmach, has committed $2 billion to the construction of a variety of oil-industry projects for carbon capture and sequestration that will ostensibly be beneficial in addressing allegedly adverse global climate trends.  Yet, we will find few people in this part of the world or elsewhere that cope with or suffer from record cold periods during winter who will clamour if the winters that make them shiver and even die in large numbers were to be a little less cold. It is obvious that cold weather kills and is at least costly.

One such project, Shell’s Quest CCS Project, will blow 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 annually down Mother Earth’s derriere, of which $780 million in initial construction costs will be funded through Alberta tax revenues.  The sequestering of an annual 1.2 million tonnes of CO2  may sound like a lot to some, and a $780 million price tag to achieve that may seem worth paying for.  However, it will do no more than to reduce man-made, global, annual CO2 emissions by a total of 21 minutes-worth of those emissions at a rate of 957 tonnes per second of global man-made CO2 emissions, while that reduction will not affect the annual emissions of the 97 percent of CO2 produced by natural sources.

Moreover, no one has so far produced any incontrovertible evidence that such an effort will have any effects on global temperature trends.  You may or may not be inclined to accept that, given that Ed Stelmach has already committed $2 billion dollars to such efforts.  However, there is ample, real-world evidence that shows that atmospheric CO2 increases and reductions over time have followed temperature trends.  Not once during the geological record of the world was there ever a time when CO2 drove temperature variations.  Here are two of many links to sources that explain that.

• Climate Change Reexamined, OEL M. KAUFFMAN, Emeritus, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, PA
  Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007
• The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change, M Carter, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory (Node C), Sporing Road South, James Cook University, Townsville Qld 4811.
  The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference Brisbane, QLD, 2 - 3 May 2007

Professor Carter states in that,

The currently favoured hypothesis of dangerous global warming includes the presumption that late 20th century warming was substantially caused by human emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. As will be elaborated later, this theory has failed the three main tests to which it has been subjected. First, no close relationship exists between the 20th century patterns of increasing carbon dioxide and changing temperature; second, 20th century rates and magnitude of temperature change fall well within previous natural limits of change despite accompanying increases in human-sourced carbon dioxide; and, third, the deterministic computer models that are used to engender public alarm have proved unable to predict the course of temperature change over the period 1990 - 2006, let alone out to 2100.

It is folly to spend money to avert catastrophic warming that — based on the evidence — will not happen, given that catastrophic warming has never happened before, while ignoring the need to adapt to the next period of glaciation that will surely happen soon.

The money spent on such useless pursuits would be better spent in ventures that truly need to be undertaken, such as fixing Alberta’s seriously ailing health-care system and curbing our run-away, government-induced debt.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »