GREENHOUSE BULLCRAP
GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE IS RUBBISH

This webpage is not updated regularly now.
I put all my effort into my Blog.
Find it here
http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do

I duplicate it here...
http://cid-cac31723049b0b5b.spaces.live.com/?lc=1033
and here...
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=425089755


This website is a collection of dozens of definitive anti-Global Warming references saved over many years - it is all here.
There is always an opposite argument, here is the debate we never had on human climate change.
All science and media reports collected by Grant Lockie - a defender of science.


Yes folks, from the same people who made you pay for the millenium bug and brought you Reds-Under-The-Bed and WMDs in Iraq, who told us we would run out of food and oil by 2000, banned DDT for nothing (& here & here & here)stopped you from eating "frankenfood" just in case it harms you, stuffed up all air conditioning for an ozone hole that just won't go away &[2][3][4], filled up your engine bay with expensive anti-pollution gear, told you Chernobel killed hundreds of thousands, (&here) and that we were entering a new ice age, stopped them building dykes around New Orleans, made wild fires worse by baning burning off, claims high voltage power lines cause cancer, and Fluoride would poison people not to mention alien crop circles, Big Foot and the loch Ness Monster, we now present  the grandaddy of them all - Ta Da! - GLOBAL WARMING - and if you think the millenium bug was a waste of money you ain't seen nuthin' yet folks, get ready to really pay.  
Your power bills and your fuel bills are going sky high.


The days of the cheap, readily availiable, power and fuel that brought luxury, prosperity and comfort to the masses are over.

Global Warming is not science.
It is a strange mixture of politics, spirituality and superstition, and media hype.

Global Warming comes from a UN political group called the IPCC, an off-shoot of the EU green parties, who have successfully used science to predict various ecological non-disasters.
Global Warming is the mother of all such doomsday fear. They have very successfully reversed the principle that the consensus follows the science -  now science follows the consensus.

Unfortunately, fixing Global Warming is not simple - Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara
would have just loved it - it is radical change.
Putting up solar panels, wind farms, and fluro light bulbs are pathetically inadequate.
Fossil fuels are so intrinsic to our whole way of life that the cure would be far worse than the disease.
We should be careful - count the cost first.
We could finish up in a Soviet-style regime, where we all catch buses and ride bikes, while the ruling Green elite enjoy the spoils of office in the name of Gaia.
What
Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara would NOT love is the betrayal of socialism that Global Warming means. Billions of third world people live in abject, subsistance, poverty. They are all denied advancement by AGW (Anthropogengic - human - Global Warming) activists and it's not just them - the attempt to control Global Warming must result in higher energy prices. The abandonment of cheap, readily availiable energy in the developed world will result in the impoverishment of not only the poor but the whole middle class. The egalitarianism that has brought abundance and prosperity to the masses in the West is now threatened. The rich like Al Gore and Leon Decaprio and Kate Blanchet will sail through aboard their business jets while their fans pay a very high price for their activism. The left should be alarmed by the alacrity that big capital has shown in embracing Climate Change - they are playing with fire letting those snouts into the trough.

At best, we'll just get endlessly nagged about a problem with no actual solution, but which goes on and on costing us a hell of a lot of money anyway.
The next time some Greenie or some Pollie starts nagging you about Global Warming, demand to see his plan to actually fix it properly once and for all or tell them to p*ss off and don't come back without one.

The whole theory is based on the very dubious contention, that this web page will now effectively debunk, that although it has no effect by itself, Carbon dioxide is going to warm the air enough to trigger more humidity and thus warm the planet up that way.
The fact that this permanent rise in humidity never occurs naturally is convieniently ignored but is never-the-less true.
The Globe often does warm up slightly all by itself and it never causes humidity to stay up (below). Why a small warming by a small CO2 increase should be special is never explained. If we had the kind of instability assumed in the Global Warming theory we would see it in the historical record - we don't.

If we get lucky, the "natural forcings" that really determine the Earth's temperature will cause a cooling in climate and we can spend our 20 million million dollars on something useful like elevating the third world.

The IPCC themselves state that the world may only heat by one degree - nothing.
We should wait, see what happens to climate, and just deal with it as best we can, as we always have.

The satellite data now shows the Globe stopped warming 10 years ago - 1998 was the last hot year - the Earth corrected its sudden temperature rise in that year and it was labeled a big El Nino year - now it is 2008 and a very slight cooling of the southern hemisphere has canceled out a very slight warming of the northern hemisphere so the global temp just stopped rising. Nothing, nill, zero warming for 10 years.
See the data here... http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html 

The Earth only radiates a limited amount of energy - in the 13.5 to 15 micron band - that CO2 can “capture” and the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already “captured” over 85% of this energy.
No matter how much CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere there is only 15% of the energy left to “capture”, and this can result in no more than a single degree C of further warming.

 



See the latest Global news from in my    News Blog


       
          Now  here - http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do





Alternative energy is important - but "peak oil" is a fallacy
The theory of Global Warming is false and faked and a disaster to the masses, BUT, Fossil fuels have important petrochemical uses and should not be just burned up until there is none left.
Alternative energy scources are important to the world.
The world has much more coal than oil and South Africa has produced oil from coal - hydrogenation - for a long time now   http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06229/714268-28.stm  
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23014049-643,00.html  .
This technology is waiting in the wings and could extend our petroleum technology by a couple of hundred years (just needs protection from price undercutting by OPEC). It is however anathema to Global Warming because it produces even more CO2 and there's the rub.
Then there is a trillion barrels of shale oil in one part of the US alone (Saudi has 262 billion barrels of ordinary oil). http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=283045647224672    
Not to mention Alaska and Antarctica which Greenies have expropriated as wilderness.
There is no need to panic. We can bring western style prosperity to the Third World. They can then replace their present social security system - very large families - with pensions and superannuation.
When they stop breeding like rabbits, populations will decline, as proven in the prosperous west.
Demanding the Third World stay Green and live as noble savages is a ridiculously fanciful idea.
The Green thing to do is to eliminate abject poverty - that will save the world and bring real sutainability.

 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.
The above are scientific facts  - I published them years ago - nobody has ever disputed them.
Why then do we get labeled "skeptics" and why should we have to prove this Global Warming theory is wrong?
It is up to the proponents to prove how a tiny increase in an infinitesimal, un-noticible greenhouse gas is going to have any detectable effect on the Earth's climate at all.
I bitterly resent having to disprove it, but it is quite easy to do, so here you go.
 



Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution - without it the planet would die - it has never caused a greenhouse effect before and will not do so now.

"One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931 by the Nazis.
When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists,
Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

Later the Nazis were very lucky not to get A-Bombs dropped on them.



How the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, created the biggest scientific fraud ever. - HERE

The most destructive aspect of the IPCC is its claim that Global Warming is true and cannot be challenged because "all scientists agree with us".
"All Scientists" do not agree with anything. There are many sciences - climatology is just one.
When
actually examined closely, the "all scientists agree with us" claim really means "no scientists disagree with us". Hardly surprising. It is very difficult to get an anti Global Warming article published, on the contrary, it is very easy to get an article published if it cites Global Warming. Most scientists just get on with their own work and wouldn't touch Global Warming with a barge pole.
Science relies on a consensus that is willing to be overturned - Global Warming will brook no denial - there is just no point in challenging it. In fact to take a stand against it usually attracts vicious character assassination.
Many years ago when the theory came out, over 10,000 scientists naively signed a petition stating that they didn't agree with Global Warming.
The media and the Greenies just ignored it - when confronted with it they claimed it was fake because one of scientists was called Perry Mason (which he was!).
To this day they still claim all scientists agree and only nutcases disagree and the media just accept that.
In light of the the bitter experience of The Oregon Petition Project http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm it is hardly surprising that most scientists now just get on with their work and stay out of the politics.
Here are the names and contact details of  PROMINENT scientists who can disprove the whole theory.
 (
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm )
Syun-Ichi Akasofu | Bruce Ames | Dennis Avery | Sallie Baliunas | Tim Ball | Robert Balling | Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen | Robert Bradley | Randall Cerveny | Kenneth Chilton | John Christy | Ian Clark | Richard Courtney | Chris de Freitas | Peter Dietze | Freeman Dyson | Myron Ebell | Robert Essenhigh | Christopher Essex | Michael Fox | Oliver Frauenfeld | Lee Gerhard | Indur Goklany | Vincent Gray | William Gray | William Gray | Kenneth Green | Howard Hayden | Ben Herman | Chris Horner | William Kininmonth | Hans Labohm | Christopher Landsea | David Legates | Jay Lehr | Marlo Lewis | Henry Linden | Richard Lindzen | Bjorn Lomborg | Anthony R. Lupo | Ross McKitrick | Patrick Michaels | Steven Milloy | Iain Murray | R. Timothy Patterson | Benny Peiser | Alfred Pekarek | Roger Pielke | Ian Plimer | Eric Posmentier | Joel Schwartz | Frederick Seitz | S. Fred Singer | Willie Soon | Roy Spencer | Gordon Swaters | George Taylor | James Taylor | Margo Thorning | G. Cornelis van Kooten | Boris Winterhalter | David Wojick | Antonino Zichichi |
To compliment it, here's another list of experts we never hear from in the mass media  http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=11  )
Then of course there's 31,000 more skeptics here - contact details are collected, but not published -  http://www.petitionproject.org/
This servey of  50,000 Canadian engineers is very interesting also - http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311  

Here is the real doomsday scenario.
1,000,000,000 Indians and 1,300,000,000 Chinese are going to laugh in their white European Greenie faces and just ignore them.
China and India will simply let  the poor white trash self destruct and will leave them far behind in the global economy.
The Planet will not overheat.
This century will belong to them. Not since Chicken Little ran around yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" have we had such a stupid lie thrust upon us as greenhouse gases.


                                                                                                                                                
The whole theory can be dismissed by three simple questions

ONE
 
  "But how do you know that that wasn't going to happen anyway"?


TWO  "But how can you be sure that those computer models are correct"?

THREE  "And how are you so sure it will be so bad - how do you know that?
.
FOUR  "Why did the Globe stop warming 19 years ago ?



Greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the earth's climate is stable when it isn't - it never
has been - it has got hotter and colder all by itself over the millennia - sometimes quite rapidly.
How can we predict man made influence when we don't have a natural base line? We cannot, of course. The Earth could cool, the Earth could warm all by itself without our help.
We know it has always fluctuated but we didn't fully understand why. However, It is becoming apparent that solar activity via the cosmic ray flux is the main influence on our planetary climate - more cosmic rays - more cloud and more precipitation.
In response to diminishing solar activity the satellite data shows a hiatus in the earth's temperature and has awakened grave concern about  new cold cycle.
Other factors are volcanic eruptions, meteors and comets, variations in our orbit and cycles in the earth's molten core.
For all we know we should be worrying about a new Ice Age instead.
Solar/Cosmic ray and ice age links. (I will try to keep these updated - see my blogs for the latest)
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States"
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
"Where Have All The Sunspots Gone?"
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
"Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age"
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10630
"This La Nina and PDO Flip and Possible Implications for a Global Cooling" 
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/this_la_nina_and_pdo_flip_and_implications_for_possible_global_cooling/ 
"UAH Satellite data for Jan08 in agreement with RSS data"
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/uah-satellite-data-for-jan08-in-agreement-with-rss-data/
"The Nature of the Sun’s Influence on Climate Change"
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/SolarInfluence.pdf
"RSS Satellite data for Jan08: 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years"
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/rss-satellite-data-for-jan08-2nd-coldest-january-for-the-planet-in-15-years/
"Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age"
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13834&t=Scientist+says+Earth+could+soon+face+new+Ice+Age
"Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?"
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/



Speaking of fundamentally  flawed, how's this?

"Don't plants just grow up faster and use up all our extra Carbon dioxide Mr Greenie?"
Greenie answer - "no Virginia it stays in the air for up to 80 years that's why we must stop making it?"
"Well why do we pay that man to plant lots of trees so we can have a nice big car and a nice big house and fly everywhere?"
"Don't ask stupid questions Virginia - that's devil talk - people will think you are a Denier and you will FAIL. Trees are nice. Trees are Green."
"Oh."
(When the trees die they all decay back to CO2 eventually anyway -but we won't mention that or forest fires either)

CO2 is a minor factor within a minor factor in the earth's temperature.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A VERY TINY COMPONENT OF AIR
CARBON DIOXIDE is only 370 parts per million volume in air - one part per million is one can of coke in a 30 meter swimming pool [370 is just over two 44-gallon drums - if it was salt you couldn't taste it, if it was dye it wouldn't colour it].
The reason CO2 is such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere is because all the plants on the Earth love it - they just gobble it up immediately - they can't get enough of it http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp . The Earth's greenhouse effect is totally caused by water vapour, but an insignificant 2% of it is due to Carbon Dioxide - MIT prof. RS Lindzen.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000 - and it's molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all. 
No reputable scientist would call Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse gas.
To call Methane at 1.8ppm a greenhouse gas is just a perversion of science.
The CO2 Dot    


Anyway, the Earth's temperature is mostly determined by air currents between the warm surface and cold space.

The greenhouse effect is overwhelmed by convectional cooling.

The sun shines through and heats up the Earth's surface, so there is a relatively hot surface at the bottom of the atmosphere and extremely cold empty space at the top. Hot air rises and takes the heat with it and cold air flows back down to fill the gap.  

Almost all the Sun's heat that is transferred back to space is by this convection - updrafts - not by re-radiation from the surface.

The blanketing effect of the atmosphere is overwhelmingly due to the speed of this circulation - greenhouse is purely a minor radiative effect.

This convection effect is a negative feedback and a "natural forcing" of the Earth's temperature. That is, if more greenhouse warming did occur, it would cause more active convection currents in the atmosphere and thus counteract the warming effect.

Ironically this is actually how real greenhouses work, by stopping this convection, "greenhouse" is a misnomer for the radiative effect (glass and plastic transmit infrared as efficiently as the higher wavelengths); by stopping the air mixing freely the Greenhouse retains it's heat.
Also, of course, some heat comes from the planet's molten core.


The Science - "JunkScience" goes into considerable detail on the atmospheric science here...  http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
  

The CO2 G. H. Effect decreases exponentially
In their usual total contempt for scientific fact, Greenies just ignore the FACT that you need more and more CO2 to produce the same effect - doubling CO2 does NOT double its Greenhouse Effect - it's only a quarter more effect - tripling it only causes one eight of an increase - etc., etc.
Carbon dioxide's wavelength is very quickly becoming saturated.
The carbon dioxide molecule can only adsorb a certain very narrow band of frequency (about 15 microns wavelenth) of the total infared heat (5-70 microns wavelenth)  going back out from the Earth.
CO2 thus has less and less effect on the global temperature as more and more of that 15 micron frequency is absorbed.  You very rapidly reach the point where CO2 has absorbed all it can.
The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is thus (inversely) logarithmic and climate sensitivity decreases rapidly with increasing concentration. 
i.e. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. etc.etc.
We have reached the point where adding more and more CO2 to air just has less and less effect.
This is scientific fact - reference here -
http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf


Carbon Dioxide is not pollution

 HOW CARBON AND CARBON DIOXIDE FUNCTION IN THE BIOSPHERE 

WITHOUT CARBON DIOXIDE EVERY GREEN PLANT ON LAND AND SEA WOULD DIE.  MANY BILLIONS OF TONS OF IT CIRCULATE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND PLANTS TO SUSTAIN ALL THE LIFE ON OUR BLUE PLANET.

 The Carbon Cycle is awesome.
Every plant on earth and in the ocean breathes in Carbon Dioxide and breathes out Oxygen and every animal on the planet breathes in Oxygen and breathes out Carbon Dioxide on a gigantic scale that dwarfs the human burning of fuels.
The Earth teems and seethes with life, most of it is invisible, such as bacteria, algae and plankton. Our macro-fauna bodies constantly battle these microbes until the moment of death, when they quickly consume us.  A Carbon Dioxide molecule from an animal is heavy and soluble and usually doesn't get far before it is grabbed by a plant.
The Carbon Dioxide that we measure in air is this flux of molecules in transit from animals to plants.
There was once much more Carbon dioxide in the air without historical evidence of a runaway greenhouse effect. It has been slowly locked up in minerals over Eons. 
Modern plants are hungry with a voracious appetite for it.
 The level of Carbon Dioxide in air changes naturally.
See the Vostoc Ice core data graph below, and here,
  http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/877439799.Es.r.html .
It varies measurably  in the northern  hemisphere when trees drop their leaves in winter - it doesn't take decades or centuries, billions of tons of CO2 are sucked from the atmosphere every spring.  
Also, its solubility in the oceans varies with the earth's temperature. Previously an increase in CO2 in air was always the result of the Earth warming - not the cause of it. (When you warm up a glass of Coke it gives off it's CO2 bubbles)
We are, however, a very long way from being able to scientifically predict the effects of perturbations to this active, dynamic, biological system. Attempts to do so quickly bog down.
An essential of the Global Warming Theory is that nature cannot absorb the human produced Carbon for many decades or even a century or two.
Like the assumptions that human CO2 will hugely trigger more water vapour in the air, and that Greenhouse will exacerbate the weather and cause disease, this is just made up as they go along and not proven.
It is not science.

 What is science is that...
 [ from http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ]
 Humans produce just 6 billion tons of Carbon (26 billion tons CO2) each year.
                                        The atmosphere contains 750 billion tons of Carbon.
          The surface ocean contains 1,000  billion tons of Carbon.
                                                        Vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 billion tons of Carbon.
                 The intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of Carbon.

 Each year; 
  • The surface ocean and atmosphere produce (exchange) an estimated 90 billion tons of Carbon.  
  • Vegetation and the atmosphere produce (exchange) 60 billion tons of Carbon.
  • Marine biota and the surface ocean produce (exchange) 50 billion tons of Carbon.
  • The surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans produce (exchange) 100 billion tons of Carbon.
The interaction of these gargantuan carbon sinks is biological in nature and extremely complex. It does defy scientific prediction; but...It is a very big [ if not incredible and disreputable ] assumption that adding a tiny 4 billion tons a year from fossil fuels back into these huge cycles and gigantic sinks will make any significant difference to the atmosphere or, conversely, that any difference in the atmosphere is entirely attributable to that tiny 4 billion tons.
 
 UNTIL WE CAN QUANTIFY AND PREDICT THE CARBON CYCLE, GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS  INVALID. 

   

 


Put on soothsayers and fortune tellers by all means
but don't dress them up as Scientists when they are not.
After their brilliant success predicting global climate, the Greenies should try the stock market and the futures market and even the odd horse race, it will pay for their political campaigns.
 
 
WATER VAPOUR IS THE EARTH'S REAL GREENHOUSE GAS. Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.  

 
Is the Globe actually warming?
Update. There was a large spike in Global Temp in 1998 but since then nothing. Now, just recently, global temperature has suddenly dropped leading to real fears that if the solar wind stays quiet we will have another "little ice age" or extended cold climate period lasting decades.
Yes Virgina the globe was warming, it goes in cycles, we had the Roman Warm period, the Medieval Warm period when Vikings  settled Greenland, then until quite recently we had the "little ice age" when it was quite cold - at present we are still coming out of the little ice age, but this appears to  have stopped about 10 years ago, so the climate may have stopped warming now (graph below). It would be a bad thing for cool temperate climates such as Europe and USA if we plunged into another cool period, but it would kill off the superstition that we are global warming the planet and save us trillons.
On a macro scale, Antarctic Ice Core Data show that we appear to be somewhere near the top of the most recent cycle in the global temperature - we may get a little warmer before we plunge into the next ice age.
Ice Core Data shows the global temperature cycle. 
A more recent global temperature graph shows a tiny increase in global temperature that shows no relationship with human Carbon Dioxide output [ the curves below show no correlation ] and which is well within natural variability.
Data shows no nexus fossil fuel burning to global temp.
[ A temperature anomaly dT is how much the average temperature for a month or a year varies from the norm.]

Total Human Carbon Dioxide OutputMore Details 
             The Total Human Carbon (Dioxide) Output                  The Proportion Of Carbon Dioxide In Air in parts per million by volume
These two graphs seen together show how, despite such a huge, rapidly increasing, global output of carbon dioxide, there is only a small, slow, linear, increase in the proportion of the gas in our air.  The 350,000 million tonnes of Carbon we have added to the atmosphere (left) is almost half the amount that was there when we started.
The planet seems hungry for the gas. It is being rapidly absorbed
and there seems to be no relationship between the two graphs.
(http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp 

The claim that recent temperature rises have occurred due to Carbon Dioxide rising is also effectively debunked by comparing the above Vostok Ice Core temperature graph [orange] with the following Vostok Ice Core CO2 graph whereby the level of CO2 follows the temperature pattern closely but always just slightly behind proving that temperature is causing CO2 to rise or fall - not that CO2 is causing temperature to rise or fall! In other words the measured increase we see in Carbon Dioxide is perfectly natural - the result of a natural cycle [probably solar] not the cause of the Earth warming as claimed by the Greenies. 
CO2 follows Temp - Temp never follows CO2

Here is tne NASA data - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ - bit complex, but there has been a slow rise - expected from coming out of the "little ice age" - and this seems to have tapered off since the big El Nino event year 1998.
It's  supposed to be GLOBAL warming but the southern half of the globe is being a "denier" and just refusing to warm at all.

scource http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
see also http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsHadley.html  and http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
Please note that there is a strong "spike" around 1998.
The spike in 1998 is proof against carbon dioxide causing more water vapour and thus more humidity and thus catastrophic warming.
After the big rise in 1998 the Globe quickly corrected itself and plunged back down again.
Humidity did not go up and stay up as supposed in the computer models.

The Earth is obviously regulating itself. Dismissing that spike as just a strong El Nino cannot explain it away.
Fact is the Earth is always regulating itself and it will do so in response to any human disruption also.
Global Warming models all rely on CO2 increasing the global humidity - an invalid assumption.
If the Alarmists could explain what happened there in 1998 we could start taking them seriously, but like the rest of us, how planet Earth behaves is still a mystery to them too - at present predicting mother Earth is still presumptuous superstition.

   

  
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.
 
So how can they claim carbon dioxide is going to overheat the Planet?
Simple -- a computer model will do it nicely.

Lies, damned lies and computer models.
A MODEL IS A MODEL OF REALITY - IT'S NOT REALITY ITSELF.
Why are otherwise sensible, rational, intelligent people prepared to blindly accept that the earth is going to get hotter because a computer  program predicts it ???
A COMPUTER PROGRAM ! well it must be true then!
Pig's Bum.
It is extremely ambitious to try to model the earth's climate itself, let alone try to include the biology and oceanography, of the whole planet in it as well!
Even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations.

  YOU COULD MULTIPLY  MANY TIMES THE CO2  LEVEL IN AIR WITHOUT IT  DIRECTLY  WARMING THE GLOBE AT ALL.
  All, not some, but all the computer models and the scenarios based on  them are based on assumptions, not verified by experimental facts or physics but pure conjecture and  unproven assertions that... 

1.  A small increase in carbon dioxide is some how going to trigger off a very large increase in the only significant greenhouse gas, water vapour.
2.  The normal negative feedback effects of increasing water vapour - more snow and clouds reflecting heat back to space and more active atmospheric updrafts dissipating the extra heat - are somehow not going to work any more to cool things down as per usual. [Snow and clouds are just left out because it is impossible to computer model them]

This is known colloquially as blinding you with science. 

Do all the computer programs factor in the Carbon Cycle ?
NO.

Does the Carbon Cycle affect the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere ?
YES. [ It is the determinant ]

Do all the computer programs assume that the Earth's climate will otherwise remain stable
YES.
Is the Earth's climate otherwise stable ?
NO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Now we find the models are proven wrong - they all predicted much increased equatorial  temperatures and they were all wrong - HERE

But let us hear from the self appointed authority who bought us the whole Global Warming theory theory based on computer models...

"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Q.E.D.

A very good technical expose and discussion on computer models... http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/23/a-short-summary-of-why-skillful-climate-prediction-is-much-more-difficult-than-skillful-weather-prediction/
And here...   http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html     


 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.

 
Rising Sea Levels?
It is true that sea levels are rising, the English Channel is relatively recent, but this is a very, very, slow process that has gone on for millennia since the last ice age.
Again this is very complex, if ice melts the land beaneath it rises, and then if sea level rises the Earth's rotation slows down, for example.
The growth of coral on tropical ocean islands out paces the sea level rising - or they wouldn't exist.
The measured data on Antarctica clearly shows the climate is cooling and ice is accumulating so the water cannot be coming from there.
The Vostok ice station sits on top of 80% of the Earth's ice - the East Antarctic Ice cap. The average annual temperature there is minus 55 degrees centigrade.  It has never been above minus 29.10 degrees centigrade down there. It is about 1000km in all directions to the coast, It sits on 3,700 metres of ice which rests in a bowl of solid rock, not ocean, and It beggars belief that a rise of a few degrees in the world temperature could melt the ice there. It just ain't gunna happen (there's a graph above that shows the earth has never risen more than 4 degress in the last half million years).
Antarctica sets a record or near record sea ice extent - http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc
The ice cap on Greenland is thickening and here and here and here so the water cannot be coming from there.
In fact the water cannot  be coming from either scource because there simply hasn't been enough time since industrialization to melt that much Ice. http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Maths_MeltingGreenlandTimeTaken.html  
It is difficult to find a scientist to support the ice caps melting due to Global Warming theory because it is patently absurd.
The Greenhouse Theory demands a permanent increase in water vapour - which is just going to produce more snow on the ice caps, replacing any melting around the edges.
The thermal expansion theory is more credible.
The oceans would rise due to thermal expansion if the Earth warmed - but then they still have to prove that fuel burning is causing the Earth to warm and that the increase is sufficient.
Proof is not computer models and proof is not a scientific consensus manufactured at the UN. The Earth is not warming significantly at all.
More on Greenland melting? http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather/
The latest hysteria - that is that large cracks in the Ice Sheets are going to let melt water sink under the ice cap and cause it to slide into the Sea by more lubrication. How this kind of rubbish gets taken seriously is a worry. As seen below, the two Ice Caps in question sit in basins there is no plane for them to slide down. Then there is their thickness - you just don't get a crevass 3 Kms deep. Melt water from the top would freeze again before penetrating 3 Km down, and last but not least the ice there is already melted - the ice cores drilled down to bedrock found that heat fron the Earths core melts the underside of an ice cap, but only just - The ice caps have been there for millions of years but they do flow outwards from the center over hundreds of thousands of years like a huge glacier - So much for that theory!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/
"A simple Primer on sea level change" -  http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/DC886512-718E-4CB9-B14A-9B0847339D9F.html

More Extreme Weather ?

This is very difficult to get a handle on because it is just made up - there is no literature - it appears to be an entropy argument however, that is, more heat  means more energy and therefore more activity.
Here in Australia, however, high pressure zones are warm, calm and stable and low pressure zones bring cold fronts and cold, windy active weather.  So who knows? If I have missed the science that proves that a warmer Earth has worse weather than a colder Earth please Email me. I'm fascinated to learn.
Speaking of Australia, we keep hearing our drought is caused by Global Warming - despite the complete lack of evidence - but this is also fudamentally flawed because Global Warming depends on an carbon dioxide triggering an increase of water vapour in air an increase in water vapour is only going to cause more rain, not less.
The Stern Report can only cite computer model evidence to support the worse weather theory - yeah right - waiting, waiting, waiting for some real science to back up this superstitious assumption.

Scientists point out that historically there is evidence of much more extreme weather in the Earth's cold periods than in the warm ones. Of course like the rest of the superstitious disaster we are still waiting for a sign - statistically extreme weather events such as hurricanes ( and here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1896266.ece ) have yet to change over the whole globe.
A really definitve debunking of hurricanes in this paper...    ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf  
Al gore used hurricane Katrina on his poster and then - just to annoy him - there were virtually no hurricanes at all in the next USA season - let alone more violent ones!!
More on Hurricanes...  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c8bb65f6-5e3e-4d88-a1f1-66f270e8b0b7
This scientist documented the very high temps in USA and found the IPCC was wrong to claim that extreme weather (temps.) will continue to increase because it hasn't yet started to increase!!  http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=1871  
And here...  http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/12/19/warmer-seas-but-no-change-in-hurricane-intensity/  


MIT professor Richard Lindzen now points out that their own computer models disagree with them on this issue...
"If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extra tropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."
Here...  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


Melting Glaciers ?
 

This claim exemplifies how insulting to our intelligence the whole Global Warming superstition is.
The Earth's climate is always changing it is NEVER static. Therefore glaciers are ALWAYS either melting or growing. We are still coming out of "the little ice age" so it is not dificult to find a melting glacier in fact it can best be described as a "cheap shot".
First a shorter glacier does not mean a melted glacier - glaciers still recede when weather is getting colder.  Colder means drier - drier means less snow = less glacier. It may just not have been snowing - durh! - less snow, less glacier. Human GW needs more humidity and thus more snow.
They take a journalist on a helicopter mountain junket  to a Glacier and say "see it is receding, it must be Global Warming".  Of course it is never asked how they know that [don't ask - don't tell!].
Has anyone done the science on it? - No.
A glacier comprises huge chunks of ice sliding down a mountain because their weight generates sufficient pressure to melt their base. It stops and starts spasmodically. It depends on the local climate, how much snow is feeding it, the Sun melting it, the lubrication effect of whatever water gets under it, the friction of the material under it, huge boulders getting jammed and stopping it, the water beneath it freezing and stopping it moving, to name a few factors. It is a very complicated phenomena. To claim that a glacier has receded because Global Warming has melted it is to trivialize it incredibly.  The current science shows all glaciers retreat and then return on a cycle over centuries.
Actually the one thing it cannot be is human caused Global Warming because we only started burning fossil fuels seriously about 60 years ago and there just hasn't been time.
This paper here http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html  states
"For example, it would take a polar ice sheet 10,000-100,000 years to respond to any global warming that might be occurring now. A large mountain glacier would take 1,000 to 10,000 years to respond to warming today, while a small mountain glacier would take 100 to 1,000 years to respond.5 Thus, one explanation for some glaciers retreating today is that they are responding to natural warming that occurred either during the Medieval Warm Period in the 11th century or to an even warmer period that occurred 6,000 years ago".

More http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N46/EDIT.jsp
And More  http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/13/more-evidence-on-the-issue-of-glacier-retreat-and-advance/
And yet more    http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1857626,00.html  

Melting Arctic ?

The Arctic Ice Cap is only a few meters thick, it only contains .01% of the worlds ice (the East Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 80% of the world's ice). It is the frozen interface between a very deep, relatively warm Arctic ocean and the very cold air mass above.  It varies considerably in thickness and extent, having a huge annual variation and apparent long term cycles. It is pushed around by the wind and the arctic ocean currents which tend to pile the ice up in some regions and create open water in others. The contention that satellite images of the AREA of the ice represent the VOLUME of the ice are patently absurd. The only measurement of the thickness of the ice has been by a very few and arbitrary submarine voyages.
As everyone knows - melting floating ice does not increase sea level at all.

Bottom line is the Arctic ice is thin and has always come and gone in cycles and even Global Warming will not eliminate it, and who says it is bad anyway? It might be good if the arctic ice melts or breaks up. It is not GLOBAL warming - the Antarctic is certainly NOT melting.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/  
 http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
and...   http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N21/EDIT.jsp  

Polar Bears.  Basically the north polar climate is historically very variable and the ice does come and go over the centuries, if the polar bears were threatened by this they would have died out a long time ago. They have had to be a very adaptive species and are not threatened now.
To counter the superstition that polar bears are endangered. here are a few links...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html  
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70914_498.html
http://nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811  

Kilimanjaro ?                                                                        
The actual research on  Kilimanjaro shows the snow is pre 20th century and cannot be being melted by Global Warming. The ice hasn't been melting it is actually vapourised by the sun see here...
 
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/06/kilimanjaro/ , and [2].
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N36/EDIT.jsp
new - 2008 -
http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/post.do?id=203568 
Bottom Line is a lot of time - over ten years - has gone by now - the ice cannot be melting due to a warming climate because the local climate just hasn't warmed.  It seems to be just a lack of snow, not a melting of snow.
.
 
DEFINITIVE SCIENCE ON ICE CAPS AND GLACIERS
More good news - we can Ignore NASA's Mr Hansen AGAIN - Ice caps cannot collapse. Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, published this really definitive scientific paper http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima&cmd=list&range=0,100&Datum==*&cmd=all&Id=1680  which debunks it and confirms the IPCC was correct not to join such alarm.
I quote from it...
"Hansen is a modeller, and his scenario for the collapse of the ice sheets is based on a false model.
Hansen has a model of an ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane, lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. The same model is adopted in many copy-cat papers. Christoffersen and Hambrey (2006) and Bamber et al. (2007). are typical papers, a popular article based on the same flawed model appeared in the June 2007 issue of National Geographic, and the idea is present in textbooks such as The Great Ice Age (2000) by R.C.L. Wilson et al."
and
"In reality the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets is well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometres of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base, and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to ‘collapse’."

A really brilliant and definitive expose'  http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima&cmd=list&range=0,100&Datum==*&cmd=all&Id=1680
And -
Antarctica sets a record or near record sea ice extent - http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc

 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.



WHY, HOW?
HOW COULD SO MANY GET IT SO WRONG?

Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund For Nature, and the Others are big multinationals, generating large cash flows from a sympathetic public. 
They succeeded far too well with the CFCs [ozone hole] acid rain, DDT and anti-nuclear scares - they got what they demanded and built up credibility, - but the money flow slowed up. 
They had killed the goose that laid the golden egg and urgently needed a new one. 
Cowardly Governments and a supine media had proven to them that only the premonition of disaster was needed, not the actual fact of it, so they cast about for a new one.
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was perfect because no Government can immediately replace all the national power stations and transportation vehicles without causing a massive depression and huge social disruption.
It is a doomsday scenario that they can drive on and on indefinitely and maintain a stable, reliable cash flow.
 
Then there is politics. 
A certain part of the electorate will decide their vote on the environment issue.
They elect balance-of-power MP s.
The mainstream parties are too scared to alienate these votes and are locked into a bizarre death dance to be Greener Than Green.
The whole raison d'etre of green politics is a crisis mentality. 
The impossible demands of Global Warming keep them firmly in place on the cross benches.
Many, now powerful, politicians cut their teeth on valid, sound, environment issues - they don't want to discover they are now being lied to by the Green movement that nurtured them in their youth.

The media of course no longer go out and find and convey facts and information to the public or check and balance reporting with contrary opinion. That is long gone. News has become entertainment. They just sit and pluck the most sensational prepackaged items presented to them on the screen. For some reason they just accept press releases from the Green lobby without question where they always balance press releases from all other political parties with comment from the opposition party. 

Then there is Science.
"Earth Science" is trendy and popular. It turns out too many graduates, more than are needed in climate science. The temptation is very strong to manufacture dramatic scenarios [qualified liberally with the word "may"] to generate research funds and employment and media publicity.

Then there is the Industry,
As a sop to Green groups, governments spend not millions but billions on "alternative" and green projects on the assumption of Global Warming and this creates a huge vested interest, an industry lobby and political voting power, and a media hype which only exacerbates the problem, because nobody opposes any of it.

Then there is religion.

Global Warming is religious. It tells us how we are all sinners, destroying the world, and to save ourselves we must repent and become truly Green
They believe the Earth is perfect and unchanging and that anything Man does to alter it is evil.
Their Satan is the 'Evil Multinationals'.

People questioning Global Warming don't realize that and become very irritated at the lack of response to reasoned theoretical argument based on fact, but they are not dealing with science, they are dealing with an article of faith. 
It's like trying to convince a Creationist that Darwin was right - you're never going to win...
Global Warming is a Sect, taking an ideological stance.
Their response to anyone opposing them is to accuse them of being in the pay of the Devil in the form of the Evil Multinationals -- this is exactly how cults keep their followers in line - we don't listen to him, he's the devil, we are pure.


 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.


So there you have it
You ,
take advantage of every warming weather cycle, drought or spectacular hurricane;
doctor up extremely esoteric computer models;
find some shrinking glaciers to 'prove' it;
get your own experts together in a political group and hijack the whole science for yourself;
NEVER DEBATE IT - just deprecate the opposition [or blame the evil multinationals oil companies];

Then use the sympathy of the public and brilliant media tactics to make them believe that a wonderful, benign, gas that nourishes every green plant on the Earth and in the sea is somehow now a dangerous pollutant .
Dr Goebbels would be proud of them.

 


 The three fundamental flaws in Global Warming are...

           1.   It falsely assumes that the Earth's temperature is otherwise stable.


           2.   It relies on coincidence, not science, that an increase in CO2 in air comes from                        burning fossil fuel.

           3.   It just assumes, with no proof, that very, very small Carbon Dioxide increases will                  be amplified (positive feedback) into big temperature effects.
.

 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.

  
Does it matter?
WHEN IDEALISM GOES TOO FAR
  • Who says a warming of the planet by a few degrees is a bad thing?  It may be a good thing. It always has been a good thing before, and who says it will be too late if we just wait and see. The planet stabilizes itself. There is no evidence of instability except possibly with snow and ice in the event of a cooling cycle [reflecting heat and causing more cooling].
  • Blackouts have started. suddenly global warming ceased to be an issuePower generation is not sexy and politicians have been quite happy to spend the money elsewhere in response to green politics and the power grids have become very stressed in summer. If you think the N.E. USA disaster was bad or the rolling blackouts in California previously, consider what will happen when the Greens force them to stop paying lip service to greenhouse and to take it seriously. 
          
  • Greenie theory requires reducing CO2 by 60% in a time frame, to be effective, that would completely destroy our economy on the scale of the Great Depression. If it was another group saying that it would be called sedition. 
  • The City of New Orleans was destroyed by a hurricane because the Greenies stopped the US Army Corps from building Dutch type levees to protect it - http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050912-095826-7458r.htm - they are lemming Luddites - the swamp plants and creatures in the local area there were more important than the million or so people who also lived there. Here now.
  • It's nice to be Green - it's not nice to destroy our economy and it's stupid to put ineffective restrictions on it. [Kyoto is admitted ineffective by all - durh!]
  • How are we now ever going to find out what really affects the Earth's temperature and how it varies over time?
  • Witch Doctors can be dangerous.
  • Creationism is another prime example of the corruption of Science by dogma.
  • Pol Pot came along with a genuine, Utopian, view for Cambodia - the Greenies have a very similar Utopian view for us, without the genocide of course - other results would be very similar though.
  • Everything we do produces large amounts of Carbon Dioxide. Fossil fuels are the very life blood of our crowded cities. We cannot reduce it without paying a heavy price, its axiomatic.
  • 1300 million Chinese are now aspiring to a family car and modern appliances, and 1000 million Indians are not far behind them. We should not exhaust out our oil reserves, they are the source of our petrochemical feedstock, however this will be mitigated by the fact that Greens have tied up huge amounts of oil in their private wilderness areas such as Alaska and the Great Barrier Reef and they are preventing politically incorrect alternative technologies such as shale oil and hydrogenation of coal - hopefully when push comes to shove common sense will prevail.
  • Sensible, practical alternatives like Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal power need to be developed, not stupid, redundant, wind farms whacking birds and bats out of the air and here, hydrogen or batteries magically getting their energy out of mid air or solar cells that are produced by melting extremely refined Silicon at higher temperatures than steel and almost cost more energy to make than they ever produce back, or fuel cells that would need more noble metal catalyst than there exists on the whole planet.


 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
It's molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.


IPCC caught out with fraud
THE INFAMOUS "HOCKEYSTICK"
 
The whole basis of the Kyoto protocol was proven a fraud.
 

 The IPCC did not check or peer review it's contention here, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm  or here  http://pame.arctic-council.org/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
 that there has been a sudden increase in the World's temperature - probably because they knew that they were really stretching it  by trying to ignore the "Medieval Warm" and the "Little Ice Age" periods and they were assuming that they would get challenged  on the method [tree rings!] not on the fixing of data - but fixed it was in a truly historic fraud (turns out that meaningless random  data fed into the graph produces the same "hockey stick" result).
  http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm

 Their response? -  the response to this fraud is more important than the fraud. In a real science situation it would have immediately been acknowledged and corrected. Instead the IPCC had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The messengers were viciously attacked and deprecated and the errors were denied. The graphs were never removed. This is not science.

 So we are now back to the fact that the earth warms and cools all by itself and that there is only a normal, co-incidental, warming  of the Earth with industrialization which is nothing special.

 The IPCC is looking more and more like an ugly sister trying to fit into a glass slipper as it desperately tries to fit the science to it's  doomsday scenario.

IPCC Faked Graph


 This is now getting into the mainstream media.
 Canadian National Post  27-1-5a

 Canadian National Post 27-1-5b

 Canadian Financial Post  28-1-5

 Natuurwetenschap & Techniek februari 2005

 http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

"The Australian" 20/7/06    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19835476-31478,00.html

Congressional Report  
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf  
Comment on report  
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8245&fldIdMsg=31029  

The Greenie response - "Fake but accurate"  
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5770  

AND FRAUD AGAIN!!
You would think after getting their fingers burnt with the infamous faked "hockey stick" they would be more careful, but then scruples have never been the strong point of the IPCC.

This article...  http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
points out how the IPCC fakes things to fit their ideology.


Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.

I QUOTE HIM FROM THE ARTICLE.
"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geo-logy when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gau-ges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!"



 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.


KYOTO - A FAILED PROTOCOL
KYOTO
All Europe, Japan and Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol and pledged to meet their targets even before it came into force.
They all solemnly agreed to reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions to 1990 levels and now many years later, not one of them has gone anywhere near reducing their Carbon Dioxide levels at all.
 

 
THE STERN REPORT

Taking junk science to a new level - when in doubt commission a computer model and call it science
STERN
The Stern Report was brought out because Tony Blair, genuinely wanting to fix Global Warming, costed it and discovered that it would cost just under half the global GDP, a staggering 15 million, million dollars, to stop it and started going around saying "no country is going to severely disadvantage its economy".  [http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091605JP]
The job of Stern was to prove that it wasn't that bad and that it would cost more to do nothing than to fix it .
Stern then cherry-picked all the scenarios and models and produced the required report to bring Blair and the nay-sayers back into line.

We are asked to believe that, while replacing all our power stations and transport vehicles systems is certainly hugely expensive, we shouldn't just wait and see how the climate changes, because computer models say it will be even more expensive not to replace them - yeah right!
These are not physical models of the climate either - they are economic models - cloud cuckoo land!
If it was actually possible to acurately model future economic conditions the modellers would keep it to themselves and become very rich, they wouldn't need to be paid by the government.

See the references below in red for criticism of the economics and methodology - I went to his science.

I have waded through the "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" presented in the Stern report.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

First thing is that he really insults our intelligence.
How can Stern report on Global Warming without balancing the benefits of Global Warming with the problems of Global Warming?
For instance, Greenland - if Greenland melted a huge island larger than the UK would be opened up for development - a positive benefit for the Globe - such positive benefits are just ignored.
Stern mentions only two small benefits of the Earth warming by 1 degree,  for over one degree it is all bad.
He only mentions possible benefits of Global Warming such as the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth, so he can deprecate that benefit.
Come on now, lets get real.
The Earth warms by several degrees and it is all bad - no good at all - yeah, right!

--------------------------------
He blandly states that we do not know how much the world will warm and then claims to know that it will all be catastrophic.
Here...
"The question of precisely how much the world will warm in the future is still an area of active research. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 in 2001 was the last comprehensive assessment of the state of the science. This chapter uses the 2001 report as a base and builds on it with more recent studies that embody a more explicit treatment of risk."
--------------------------------
Stern asserts that there is no doubt that humans are responsible for all the increase in carbon dioxide in air. This is absolutely crucial to the whole argument and yet this is the best he can do for a scientific reference to justify it
Here...
 "2 The human origin of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is demonstrated through, for example, the isotope composition and hemispheric gradient of atmospheric carbon dioxide (IPCC 2001a)".
That is not a proper scientific reference - nobody can examine it. Isotopic composition and atmospheric gradient proves that we have put a lot of CO2 into the air - not that we have increased it's proportion of air - the proportion is still determined by the carbon cycle. Hemispheric gradient means there is more in the large heavily populated northern hemisphere land masses - durh!
--------------------------------
Stern dismisses the astounding fact that the CO2 graph [sic above] does not follow the Earth's temperature graph with this... 
"And there is uncertainty in linking temperature change to amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere."
--------------------------------
It is amazing, the amount of junk science that is being done.
For instance Stern makes the preposterous claim that we can model the Carbon Cycle...
"Rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns are expected to weaken the ability of the Earth’s natural sinks to absorb carbon dioxide (Box 1.3), causing a larger fraction of human emissions to accumulate in the atmosphere. While this finding is not new, until recently the effect was not quantified. New models, which explicitly include interactions between carbon sinks and climate, suggest that by 2100, greenhouse gas concentrations will be 20 – 200 ppm higher than they would have otherwise been, amplifying warming by 0.1 – 1.5°C.21 Some models predict future reductions in tropical rain forests, particularly the Amazon, also releasing more carbon into the atmosphere22. Chapter 8 discusses the implications of weakened carbon sinks for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations."
The Carbon Cycle is the exchange of carbon (dioxide) between all the plants on Earth and in the sea and all the animals on the Earth and in the sea - you can imagine how extremely complex that is - makes the weather and climate look simple!
"New models"! Is that it! Yet more models - could we have some real science please?
He cites these "New models" to counter the perfectly reasonable claims that human produced CO2 will just fertilize more plant growth and be quickly
absorbed.
The carbon cycle is biological and extremely complex - it just cannot be properly modeled.  Still, if you can get away with models of
a coupled non-linear chaotic system like the Earth's temperature why not?!
--------------------------------
Stern erroneously claims that science is determined by consensus and has the gall to claim there has been a debate - when was the last time you heard a climate cynic on the mass media, or a balancing comment on the latest "Arctic is melting, polar bears threatened" press release? There has been no debate...
"The IPCC concluded in 2001 that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over at least the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.10 Their confidence is based on several decades of active debate and effort to scrutinize the detail of the evidence and to investigate a broad range of hypotheses."
The scientific doctrine determines that science is decided by a few individuals with reasoned, reproducible, theory and evidence and who then generally overturn the existing consensus. (The existing consensus was overturned, but not by the scientists, they got shoved aside).
So sad what these people are doing to science.
--------------------------------
Stern offers this magnificent piece of obfuscation - clear evidence that Stern is fudging the whole document...
"The main positive feedback comes from water vapour, a very powerful greenhouse gas itself. Evidence shows that, as expected from basic physics, a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour and traps more heat, amplifying the initial warming.17".
Problem is...
1/    Water vapour is the ONLY effective greenhouse gas - it is typically 10,000 ppm vol in air, it's molecule has a greenhouse effect
several times that of CO2 which is only 380ppm vol. and which is totally insignificant as a greenhouse gas on its own.
2/    The temperature of the planet obviously stabilizes itself - if we had the positive feedback claimed there for water vapour we would just have a runaway greenhouse effect. It would runaway every time the Earth warmed (yes Virginia the Earth does warm all by itself). There must be a negative feedback in play  (e.g. more water vapour - more clouds - cooler surface - less evaporation - less water vapour; or, more heat, more updrafts, more clouds and more removal of heat to space that way).
3/   He has singled out Professor Lindzen, a prominent Greenhouse critic, for denigration here. Stay tuned I'll let you know how Prof. Lindzen reacts.
--------------------------------
Speaking of fudging the whole document.
Stern has the gall to mention the infamous "Hockey Stick".
A US Senate committee determined that the "Hockey Stick" was a fake.
The whole point of the "Hockey stick debate" is not what the Earth's temperature has or has not been doing, but that the IPCC, on which Stern is relying totally, published and relied upon a FAKED document and no amount of "faked but true" argument is going to alter the fact that the IPCC DID NOT CHECK IT PROPERLY.
It discredits the whole TAR 3 document and the IPCC and thus Global Warming itself.
Nobody can understand the computer models. We are told - trust us we are UN scientists, we used a faked graph but you can still trust all our computer models.
Uh huh! Mmm.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19835476-31478,00.html
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8245&fldIdMsg=31029
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5770
(The hockey stick has now been airbrushed out of the IPCC dogma - no explaination - it's as if it never existed)
--------------------------------
Stern claims...
 "Most climate models predict increases in rainfall at high latitudes" and then speculates on the ice caps melting. The two are mutually exclusive, nobody can claim that the polar climate will warm above zero even in summer. More precipitation means more ice cap, not less.
--------------------------------
So much for the movie!
The Gulf Stream is not going to stop and freeze Europe and eastern Nth. America after all. (phew!)
Stern confirms...
 "Any sustained weakening of the THC (sic. gulf stream) is likely to have a cooling effect on the climates of Europe and eastern North America, but this would only offset a portion of the regional warming due to greenhouse gases."
--------------------------------
Stern offers this pathetic (follows) consensus argument as proof that we will get all the weather disasters predicted by Global Warming and then uses by it for all his doomsday prognostications.
Stern here...
"45 Huntington (2006) reviewed more than 50 peer-reviewed studies and found that many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified in the past 50 years, including rainfall and evaporation. Modeling work by Wetherald & Manabe (2002) confirms that warming will increase rates of both precipitation and evaporation".
Waiting, waiting, waiting, for proof - sorry but "many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified" proves NOTHING, neither does "modeling work". All of Stern is based on modeling work. Modeling work is just that - someone's model of what they think may be reality.
--------------------------------
Stern keeps talking about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet when the huge magority of the world's ice is in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is relatively trivial.
--------------------------------
The most significant piece of the Stern report could be this conclusion.
"We must be very clear that this is an international problem and action must be multilateral."
Almost none of them are honouring the token Kyoto Protocol. This gives them their escape clause. They can justify doing nothing as long as one magor power stays out of the Global Warming consensus.
--------------------------------
Want some more Stern Review reviews that you didn't get? Here's a couple more...
A Cambridge professor http://www.foundation.org.uk/events/pdf/20061108_Dasgupta.pdf -
A Yale professor of economics  http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/stern_050307.pdf   http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/nordhaus_stern_science.pdf   
Stern Report "falls apart" - Bjorn Lomborg.






http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_Bullcrap.htm
Other Cynic Websites.

Don't wanna believe me ? - I'm not the only one. 
The facts above can be confirmed on these  links...

   SPPI  - New site by heavyweight anti-alarmists, e.g. Lord Christopher Monckton, William Kininmonth, and our own Robert M. Carter ...  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/  

       Demand Debate     http://demanddebate.com/news.html
  I.C.E.C.A.P.     Brilliant new website    http://icecap.us/index.php

   Professor Singer's new website   http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
Friends of Science - a University of Calgary based group   http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php

Another Anti Global Warming website  - SEPP - The Science & Environmental Policy Project - http://sepp.org/
 
  New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - a very good, newsy, new website. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

Now   
John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental & Regulatory Affairs    http://www.nationalcenter.org/eptf.html      http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html  


 CO2 Science is back  http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
 
  Junkscience - an irreverent tilt at those abusing science,  including global warming     http://www.junkscience.com/

 Colorado State University.    http://climatesci.org/



  http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=great+global+warming+swindle
  http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/  

Professor Bob Carter - James Cook University - "If you can keep your head when all about you
  Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;" - Rudyard Kypling.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

The Global Warming Petition project - an exercise in futility by over 17,000 scientists who naively thought that someone would listen, or even notice, if they said that they didn't believe it! (greenies attacked it as fake because one or two had famous names, e.g. Perry Mason, it was too late when a scientist named Perry Mason protested he had actually signed the petition!).   http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Dr Spencer - a prominent cynic - "optimist" as he likes to call himself - as opposed to alarmist. Easy to understand prose...    http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

 Professor Stott.  A long time contributor to debate in UK...  http://parliamentofthings.info/  

   http://www.globalwarming.org/  The website of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an international group of non-profit organizations dedicated to smarter thinking on the subject of global warming and climate change. Here you will find essays and articles on the science, economics and politics (both domestic and international) of the issue. The debate over global warming has become very heated. That's why it's time for Cooler Heads.
 
 Heartland Institute   http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/   very newsy and updated website.

     http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.WelcomeMessage  US senator Inhofe now a prominent cynic and nemisis of AL Gore.


THERE IS AN ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT AND DEFINITIVE BBC 
DOCUMENTARY WHICH CONCLUSIVELY DEBUNKS THE WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING SUPPOSITION AND 
NEUTRALIZES AL GORE. 
"THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" - 4 MILLION HITS ON GOOGLE VIDEO
(25 march)
 HERE           

latest link - http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
 -
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=great+global+warming+swindle 
         
          Australian Sales here...  http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=747520  
                    More Aussie sales here - macom - http://www.marcom.com.au/product_details.php?prod=88MRA1176
Amazon,com... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Global-Warming-Swindle/dp/B000OOOKZS
NTSC format... http://store.demanddebate.com/great-global-warming-swindle-dvd.html

More (less active sites)

 FAEC Argentina   http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Warming.html  
The Lavoisier Group Australia  http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
Envirotruth
   http://www.envirotruth.org/32.html   Experts Who Contest Kyoto's Scientific Foundation.
Tech Central  http://www.climatechangeissues.com/

 
WATER VAPOUR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.
Water Vapour is up to 40000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10000.
Its molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide, at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all.



top
 
[ Note this is only a representation of the blackout and not the actual blackout photos ]



Thank you for reading my website - I hope you found it informative.
I am fastidious to keep it factually accurate - please do point out any errors in fact to me.
Sorry for the ads - they are not to make money - the money goes back into my own ads to promote the site and spread the message - so far so good.

Regards from Grant  Lockie
PO Box 1045
Surfers Paradise
Queensland.
Australia 4217
Email     grantsmail2 AT hotmail DOT com

 I have just had to stop advertising this site on google because I cannot afford it - if you think it is worthwhile please donate and I will use the money to advertise it more widely - donations through Paypal are safe - your card number is hidden at all times.

Gaia is the Greek Earth God.
The Gaia hypothesis (and here) is the perversion of science to justify worship of the Earth as a God. It fulfills the hungry need for a spiritual dimension in the Green movement which must maintain the pretense of being based on secular science.
It is an ecological theory that proposes that the living matter of planet Earth functions like a single organism. An early recognition of some of the core assumptions of the Gaia hypothesis was given in the book Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas. It was first scientifically formulated in the 1960s by the independent research scientist James Lovelock, as a consequence of his work for NASA on methods of detecting life on Mars. He wrote an article in the science journal Nature, before publishing the concept in the 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. He named this self-regulating living system after the Greek titan Gaia, using a suggestion from the novelist William Golding. 



 
*Adolph Hitler's minister of propaganda, invented - "The Big Lie " - that is if a lie was monstrous enough, repeated often enough, and viciously defended - the whole population would accept it .
** political greens - not when you pick your nose.

.



A List of Scientific Papers and Carbon Racket Links.html

Old - news blog

The Greenhouse Effect Explained

predictVreality

worlds ice - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html



Donate

_