I'll work on it when I can... I'll date changes and additions at the start of the line so you can see what's new. Any ideas? Any additions? Let me know. Oh, and I'll move it to the top of the blog when I think of it...
Post from the Daily Princetonian, on this thread:
Posted by Dr. Bradley
Thank You Professor. You and thousands of other true scientists are proof Al Gore lied about a "consensus".
1. CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3% of that is anthropogenic.
2. Natural Water Vapour causes 95% of the greenhouse effect
3. 12,000 years ago my country Canada, was covered in ice several miles thick. It melted naturally with no help from human activity.
4. The Eemian Interglacial - 125,000 years ago - was much hotter that todays Holocene interglacial. CO2 was skyrocketing as well. Modern man was not here yet but if we were some Al Gore type would have been blaming "human activity". Most climate alarmists are so poorly educated they never even heard of the Holocene or Eemian, and therefore they have no academic basis for trying to express an intelligent opinion.
5. All interglacials, including today's Holocene, come to an end and we return to an ice age. This is due very soon.
6. Ice caps are growing, and sea level is dropping. Here is the peer reviewed scientific proof: http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf
7. Enjoy the warm while you can, and don't be fooled by a lawyer turned politician who "invented the internet."
8. Best wishes for 2009
9. The sun is losing power and this is going to be a long term trend. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
Bob Carter, Quadrant, LII:451 The Futile Quest for Climate Control
The science reality is that climate is a complex, dynamic, natural system that no one wholly comprehends, though many scientists understand different small parts. So far, science provides no unambiguous evidence that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf
The virtual reality is that computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no established Theory of Climate, and therefore the potential output of all realistic computer general circulation models (GCMs) encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings, the outcome depending upon the way in which they are constructed. Different results can be produced at will simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover.
The public reality in 2008 is that, driven by strong environmental lobby groups and evangelistic scientists and journalists, there is a widespread but erroneous belief in our society that dangerous global warming is occurring and that it has human causation.
Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.
Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
June 4th 2008, 9:46 AM BST
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Forum on American Physics & Society, Physics and Society, July 2008. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Arctic Ice Extent Discrepancy: NSIDC versus Cryosphere Today15 08 2008
Foreword: I had originally planned to post a story on this, but Steven Goddard of the UK Register sends word that he has already done a comparison. It mirrors much of what I would have written. There is a clear discrepancy between the two data sources. What is unclear is the cause. Is it differing measurement and tabulation methods? Or, is it some post measurement adjustment being applied. With a 30 percent difference, it would seem that the public would have difficulty determining which dataset is the truly representative one. - Anthony http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
Climate change forecasts are useless for policymaking
By Kesten Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon.
Even as we struggle with serious global financial and economic difficulties, some people believe manmade global warming is a real problem of urgent concern. Perhaps this is because, almost every day, media outlets quote “experts” who predict that soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, increasing storms, prolonged droughts and other disasters will result from human activity.
22/3/09 Maldives not drowning...
Dennis Jennings Petition against an ETS (Listen To Us)
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322&page=0 fisking AGW
THE VINDICATION OF CARBON MEANS THE VINDICATION OF HUMAN FREEDOM
Robert D. Brinsmead – Web Published, April 2009
Stunningly Flawed Science (from Junk Science)
How can we trust warmists, when so much of the methodology is flawed ... in this case, it is the task of measuring temperature:....
(thanks to Minicapt)
During the 2008 International Conference on Global Warming, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi presented a radically new theory of the greenhouse effect:
Arthur Rörsch asked me to support him in explaining FM’s theory in more common terms, and initiated a discussion with our national expert, dr. Rob van Dorland, KNMI, the Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute, to be able to criticize the new theory. Of course, Ferenc Miskolczi himself participated in this e-mail discussion.
The point is, that the new theory predicts a much smaller effect of increased greenhouse gases on the mean temperature of the Earth, about 10% compared to that of the standard theory that is widely known through the IPCC publications.
Rob van Dorland treats in his PhD thesis infrared atmospheric radiation, greenhouse effect and climate change as a function of greenhouse gas concentrations.
My experience as a physicist is heat transfer in general, a.o. the design of “energy producing greenhouses” by employing efficient heat exchangers. http://www.fiwihex.com/.
I am much more an experimentalist than a theorist, made many computer models myself and have therefore some suspicion against complicated numerical solutions. Therefore I am impressed by FM’s theory. It has a closed algebraic form, and so is quite open to inspection. The paper is not easily accessible, and difficult to read for the unprepared because a number of well-known physical laws are mentioned solely as an illustration, not as part of the theory. http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
Read complete article (which proves the opposite of the GHG/CO2 theory supported by IPCC and other AGW advocates), here:
10/5/09 Berfel at Bolt's posted this link
An Independent Analysis of Global Warming by Heinz Lycklama (PhD in Nuclear Physics, McMaster University) 4 May 2009. (note: Lycklama seems to be a creationist?)
7.0 What conclusions can we draw from the analysis?
As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:
1. The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.
2. The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.
3. The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.
4. Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.
5. The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.
6. The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.
7. GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.
8. Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.
9. Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.
10. Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.
11. Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW.
Somerset/Wivenhoe Dams, rainfall in Qld and why isn't there enough water: what's the solution? http://wivenhoesomersetrainfall.com/
The water in our Dams comes from two sources.27 Jun 09
The First is normal rainfall that we see every year – most of it coming from the high impact rain that falls in the four short Summer months with little inflow from the remaining months. We have viewed in the above chart that the deficiency of 20% in the six years to 2006 was all in the non-summer months which rarely create inflow.
The Second and most significant source of our water comes from unseasonal deluges – typically associated with Monsoons, Cyclones or large Low pressure systems. They do not occur every year but, on average, every twelve years in tight groups of two or three years. When they do come they generally cover the whole of South East Queensland and have the capacity to fill and overflow our dams. They can occur at any time during the year.
As an example, in a few days the dams can take in the water of 9 years of normal average rainfall. The Television pictures of the Fairburn Dam in Central Qld of January 2008 remind us of the Monsoon's powerful ability to fill large Dams in a few days. SEQWater is to the point and calls them “uncommon events”.
How the US Temperature Record is Adjusted.
There has been criticism of the potential for official weather stations in the USA to record artificially high temperatures because of the changing environments in which they exist, for example, new asphalt, new building or new air conditioning outlets. Meteorologist, Anthony Watts, has documented evidence of the problem and Canadian academic, Ross McKitrick, has attempted to calculate just how artificially elevated temperatures might be as a consequence.
Answers on Climte Change from Quadrant... https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/06/answers-on-climate-change
Peer reviewed articles sceptical of AGW.
Even if a deal is somehow struck at Copenhagen, it will involve promised reductions of CO2 emissions that seem literally incredible. The rich countries that belong to the Group of Eight, including the US, say they want to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – which will mean a massive transfer to cleaner sources of energy. As Oliver Morton, the science writer, points out – “Building two terawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 – enough to supply 10 per cent of the total carbon-free energy that’s needed – means building a large nuclear power station every week; the current worldwide rate is about five a year. A single terawatt of wind – 5 per cent of the overall requirement – requires about 4m large turbines.”
The Great Debate ie. Ian Plimer v Gore Trained Gary Warden here:
I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’? There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate. So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data. Read more here:
Ian Plimer answers his critics, Occam's Razor. ABC 18/10/09
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2716078.htm (read more here)
read more at the link above..
Ian Plimer: For more than 80% of time, Earth has been an iceless, warm, wet, greenhouse planet.
Past temperature changes have been far greater and far more rapid than anything measured in modern times.
We humans have adapted to live on ice, the mountains, in the tropics, in deserts and at sea level.
Past great climate changes were driven by natural cyclical processes such as the position of our solar system, wobbles in the Earth's orbit, changes in the sun, oscillations in the oceans and tidal changes.
Random events, such as volcanoes, also changed climate. In the past, climate has not been driven by atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.
The greatest biomass on Earth has always been bacteria and bacteria are the only life on Earth that has ever made great changes to the atmosphere.
Since the first photosynthetic bacteria on Earth more than 2,500 million years ago, life has been sequestering carbon dioxide.
Over the last 500 million years, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been sequestered into algal and coral reefs, shells, cements, precipitates, fossil fuels and sediments.
During these times of atmospheric high carbon dioxide, the oceans were not acid.
1/11/09 From Skeeter
Ryan N. Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update
Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn
18/2/10 NASA cagey about releasing information... from Pajama's Media.
Submissions to UK Parliament re Climate
10/4/10 Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
For years now, we have been told that science is dedicatedly attempting to find out how the Earth’s Climate works. With all possible seriousness, the most publically vocal of these scientists, those working for the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have for the last several years blamed the warming they “found” on Carbon Dioxide. With the release of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) email database, it is very clearly apparent that the scientists involved with the IPCC were doctoring data to give a specific result. That result was designed to look as if CO2was causing climate change, warming the earth due to Human activities. It can be reported now that this theory has been solidly disproven by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr. Miskolczi’s work will make history.