Category Archives: United Nations

Wealthy Green NGOs Versus The Heartland Institute

Posted on March 20, 2013 | 3 comments

Willie Soon and David Legates made a presentation in Delaware explaining why they believed  man-made global warming is overblown and illustrated their position by showing the data that belies the alarmist computerized predictions of  CO2-caused  global catastrophe.  How did the major Delaware newspaper cover this? Poorly, because they are in the tank for man-made global warming.  How can you know that,  you are wondering.  The paper’s reporter felt it necessary to make anything that Soon and Legates said suspect by using  “Some environmental groups have pointed to Soon’s and Legates’ ties to organizations financed by fossil fuel and deeply con­servative interests, in­cluding the George C. Marshall and Heartland institutes.”   This is the usual innuendo that greens and their allies in the media use.    They have a dearth of factual data so they make personal attacks.

Actually this piece of untruth was pretty tame compared to that by Juliet  Eilperin of the Washington Post where she embellished the story by putting in the amounts of funding she believed had been given to Marshall and Heartland by Exxon and the Koch Brothers.  But more on this later.

I suppose that you know there are many issue oriented organizations –Non-Government Organizations (NGO)– out there trying to persuade people to their  point of view.  A very large number of them have the mission of persuading you that global warming is a crisis and that unless we stop using fossil fuels, we are dooming the future generations to terrible catastrophes.  Where do they get their money?  Before we try to shed some light on  that  question, lets look at the relative size of the green NGOs  and the George C Marshall and Heartland Institutes.

A partial list* of Green NGOs is tabled below.  The following data are from Charity Navigator  which rates a NGOs using the information supplied by that NGO. The data is for  2012 or the last fiscal year of these organizations. “Program expenses” result from the direct effort to accomplish their mission.  They also have administrative and fund raising expenses which I have not tabled.

Green NGOs                                 Program Exp $K    Assets$K       CEO pay$K

Nature Conservancy                       672,757                      5,180,559           493

World Wildlife Fund                       139,971                         271,695           496

Environmental Defense                   70,755                          137,034          426

Nat. Resc. Defen. Council               76,931                          197,413            381

Sierra Club Foundation                   46,672                            82,622          157

World Resource Inst.                       34,831                            59,902         376

Union of Concerned Scientists     18,029                            29,879           240

Strats for Global Envir                        5,641                               4,945         355

Ctr for American Progress             31,390                             36,626         250

Greenpeace US  **                                 9,601                               9,407         153

subtotal                                               1,106,390

* As a means of approximating the  numbers of the NGOs that are global warming advocates,  we note that more than 700 NGOs  registered to attended COP 17 held in Durban,  South Africa.  See here, here and here.  (h/t to Willis Eschenbach)  Those that attended are just a fraction of the total of all the green NGOs.

**Greenpeace International’s 2011 budget was € 241 million, their program expenditures were €160 million  and it leads 27 regional offices, one of which is Greenpeace US.

Now lets look at what the Charity Navigator has to say about  the  non-green NGOs, George C Marshall and Heartland Institutions and see how they match up with the green NGOs:

George C Marshall                                      342                                   154           24

Heartland                                                   4,008                                  -157         154

subtotal                                                       4,350

The difference is vast.  Can you imagine if you are a green being frightened of these “pipsqueaks” so much that you have to take every opportunity to tell lies about their funding.  That is $1,106,578,000 for programing  versus the $4,350,000 for those fearsome little giants or stated another way, the expenditures for the little giants are 0.4% of the green NGOs.  Note that Heartland is experiencing a deficit.

Earlier I said we would pick up on the  Juliet Eilperin story. She said in a posting that: “The Heartland Institute received more than $7.3 million from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2010, and nearly $14.4 million between 1986 and 2010 from foundations affiliated with Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch.”  She had issued a retraction after Joe Bast of Heartland provided the real numbers saying: “ExxonMobil over the course of a decade gave less than a tenth of the amount reported, never amounting to even 5 percent of our annual receipts. The reported level of support from the Kochs was even more egregiously wrong: Except for a gift of $25,000 last year for our work on health care reform, the Kochs hadn’t donated a dime since 1998.”  Also it should be noted that ExxonMobil have not made any contributions to Heartland for the last 7 years.  Why do reporters keep using this innuendo?  Could it be that it is too good to give up even if it is not true?  Or do they not do any research, but rather rely on Alarmist to tell them what to say.

By the way, the Washington Post have closed down their environment desk and have reassign Eilperin to other work.  Did you know that her husband (Andrew Light) is a senior fellow on climate/energy issues at the Center for American Progress (see NGO chart).  Did the Washington Post make this move concerned that there might just be a conflict on interest as she never made her husband’s employment known in her opinion pieces?

Lets get ExxonMobil out of the discussion.   From the ExxonMobil 2011 Corporate Citizenship Report we learn that they are no longer funding anyone that “questions the science of climate change” and that they provided funding to the following advocacy groups and research in 2011:

MIT, Stanford (this is a $100million grant over two years), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics and Science, Battelle Pacific Northwestern Laboratory, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, The Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Resources for the Future, and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

I think that this decision by ExxonMobil was ill advised.  However, fair is fair, so I guess all you who have been saying that a skeptic that took ExxonMobil  money was bought and paid for,  will say that about any Green NGO that takes ExxonMobil  or other fuel supplier’s money.   Can I plan on that?

While taking about the sources of “tainted” money, why is it the Greens go after the Koch Brothers but don’t mention George Soros?    My guess is that because Soros is big source of funding and support for them,  he is off limits.

While the Kochs believe that CO2 is not a major factor causing global warming, it is probably their political positions that most irritate those that deride the Kochs.  The Kochs do support conservative candidates and conservative causes.  But Soros supports political parties too. In fact according to Wiki, Soros spent over thirty million dollars in a failed effort to stop George W Bush from getting a second term.   There is  irony  here in that he is said to have been a major force behind the McCain and Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Yet he now is heavily into 527 organizations which can and do spend large amounts of money in political campaigns.  He always supports Democrats.  He contributes heavily to liberal causes according to studies.  He puts money into the Tides Foundations which mainly supports liberal causes and the man-made global warming theory.

There are other things that are not so acceptable.  Soros said in 2006, according to Wiki,””the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States”.  In 2010 he said “Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States”. He seems to agree with the NY Time economist that a dictator would be a better form of government. Simply stated, I do not believe his political views are shared by the majority of the US population.  See here for additional citations of his philosophy.

This posting shows that the Heartland and Marshall innuendo is bogus.  To be fair,  when warmers speak the media should saying something like this— “The non-radical environmental groups have pointed to So and So ties to organizations financed by fossil fuel and deeply liberal interests, in­cluding the Worldwide Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.”  My preference is that media people don’t use these ad hominum attacks because as I have shown, the attacks are neither fair nor truthful.  The use of these attacks only serve to show the media’s ignorance bias.

And we have not touched upon the Government funding which is even larger and perhaps even more imbalanced in the warmers favor.

And we have not  shown how the NGOs operate to influence legislation, and the popular opinion.

More to come.

cbdakota

3 Comments

Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Kyoto, United Nations

The UK Gets It, The US Doesn’t–Teaching AGW In Schools

Posted on March 18, 2013 | 1 comment

In Great Britain, it is being recommended that the advocacy of man-made global warming be cut from the national curriculum for children 13 and under (see here).  In the US,  teaching of AGW has been recommended for all grades and in every science class. The following  is an overview of this plan and those that have developed it according to a Bloomberg.com posting on 4 March 2013:
 “The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nonprofit Achieve and more than two dozen states. They recommend that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” the standards say.”

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations, Windpower

Comments On COP18 Doha, Qatar Meeting—Kyoto II And Reparations

Posted on December 19, 2012 | Leave a comment

 The 18th Conference of Parties (COP) met in Doha, Qatar from 26 November to 7 December. Initially the purpose of these COPs was to monitor the Kyoto treaty which was designed to control greenhouse gas emissions. The people who set up this treaty hoped that it would give global governance of world’s energy to the UN bureaucracy.  It has failed to do that. The Kyoto Treaty  expires on 31 December 2012.  Undeterred, the attendees replaced it with  Kyoto II. The response to Kyoto II by the COP 18 attendees was underwhelming.  And this new version has even less chance of accomplishing their desired result.The COP meetings have a new raison d’etre that alleges that the developed nations have damaged or will damage the undeveloped nations and thus owe them reparations. The idea is that developed nations send money to the UN who then decide what to do with it. Surpassed only by a few despots such as Duvalier and Amin, UN bureaucrats have mastered the art of siphoning money out of similar programs into their own Swiss bank accounts.  The “OIL FOR FOOD”  program is an example.  Do you want give your money to the UN?  I don’t. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Models, CO2, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Renewable Energy, United Nations

Lovelock No Longer an AGW Alarmist

Posted on April 24, 2012 | Leave a comment

“James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.” according to a report by MSNBC.  Lovelock still supports the theory of man-made global warming (AGW), but clearly he wishes to back away from the Alarmists that dominate that movement and are followed closely by the mass media.

For those who don’t know James Lovelock, he is considered a major force in the AGW movement.  In a 2007 Time magazine special edition titled “Heroes of the Environment”, Lovelock was cited as one of 13 “leaders and visionaries” of the environmental movement.  Also cited in that edition were Gore, Gorbachev, Prince Charles, Angela Merkel, Robert Redford, David Suzuki and several others.  (I know, I know, based on his company in the Time list you may want to question its value.)   Lovelock is a Fellow of the Royal Society.   He has been awarded many prizes including the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society highest award.  Charles Darwin was a previous winner.  He was made Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1990.

Here are several of Lovelock’s Alarmist positions.

“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

“By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin. In Britain we will escape because of our oceanic position.”  “If you take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions, then by 2040 every summer in Europe will be as hot as it was in 2003 – between 110F and 120F. It is not the death of people that is the main problem, it is the fact that the plants can’t grow – there will be almost no food grown in Europe.”[25]

In 2006 Dr Lovelock predicted the Earth “would catch a morbid fever” that would destroy six billion people – “the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.  In 2009, he told the Guardian that “we may face planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between superpowers”.

Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis:  “First formulated by Lovelock during the 1960s as a result of work for NASA concerned with detecting life on Mars the Gaia hypothesis proposes that living and non-living parts of the Earth form a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism.”

So what is he now saying?

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,”

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,”

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that….”

He adds that Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

Well,  we are better off by one Alarmist dousing his flaming rhetoric.  But there are many others out there still untamed and a mass media still happy to pass such rhetoric along as science.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, Ecosystems, Environment, Famine, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

Obama Administration And A UN World Government

Posted on April 3, 2012 | Leave a comment

Is there a connection between the Obama Administration and a UN world government?

The Obama Administration policy, known as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI), is intended to help developing countries combat the effects of man-made global warming.  Since 2010, the Obama Administration, in the name of GCCI, has given away  $2.5 billion.  Obama has requested another $770 million for 2013.  The objectives of this anti-global warming foreign aid are: adaption, clean energy and sustainable landscapes.  Adaption is to provide better climate data and to teach them how to adapt to floods, droughts, and sea level rise.  Clean energy is to help them develop their own green energy programs.  And sustainable landscapes is to save the forests from over-logging, for example.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has voiced some excellent reasons for not spending this money among which are the following:

  • Man-made global warming is at best uncertain.
  • The Nation is facing another year of $1trillion budget deficits so this expenditure could be fiscally responsible.
  • Foreign Aid is often misused or wasted in these countries.

CRS does note that sometimes such a program can be effective in preserving the US leadership role in the world and other intangibles.

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences, e.g. Copenhagen, Cancun, have developed Accords that say the Developed Nations owe the Developing Nations monies as “environmental justice” because the former have prospered at the expense of the latter.

The Cancun Accord summary released December, 2010 by the parties at the Conference outlines the transfer of monies:

“Following negotiations that ran through early Saturday morning, delegates at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cancun adopted by consensus the Cancun Accords, a series of documents that will provide the basis for efforts to confront climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires.

The accords include a $30 billion-package for 2012 to aid nations taking immediate actions to halt effects of global warming, as well as financing for long-term projects to protect the environment through a Green Fund, which will provide $100 million annually for adaptation and mitigation measures.  Delegates also approved the creation of the forestry program Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) to facilitate the flow of resources to communities dedicated to forest conservation”.

The reasons given by the Administration for the GCCI seem to mirror those in the UN Cancun Accord.  The US delegates at this conference supported the Cancun Accord, unfortunately.  That of course does not make the Accord law, but it does represent the mindset of the Administration and their delegates

The monies are a part of the Warmers overall objective of giving the UN control of global environmental regulation’s enforcement.  The environmental control would mean that the UN would be able to control energy use, development, etc. —the lifeblood of every nation.  Easy to see how this would make the UN the world government.  Do you want the UN to govern our nation?

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, CO2, Domestic Energy, Environment, EPA, IPCC, United Nations

Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already (NOT) Happening

Posted on March 8, 2012 | Leave a comment

This posting’s title, “Climate Change Impacts In the USA Are Already (Not) Happening” is a direct lift of a Craig Loehle, Ph.D. essay that was posted on the WattsUpWithThat website.   Loehle says that the US Government reports by such groups as “NASA, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, USFS, USDA and other agencies mention that climate change impacts are already observable in the USA.” Loehle adds: “This is discussed in the context of endangered species conservation, forest resource assessment, future water availability, disaster planning, agriculture policy, etc. I have read many of these reports, which often refer back to the IPCC or the US Global Change Research Program. But they are usually vague on details of what bad things are expected to happen, generally referring to increases in extreme events. Nevertheless, these vague bad things are being used to guide policy.

The USA has some of the best data and is a large country. Are bad effects of climate change really visible already? In what follows, I address the evidence often put forward to support these claims and compare these to the literature. The true story is far from alarming.”

Loehle discusses what the facts support about these observable climate impacts versus the vague bad things that the Government is spinning. The main topics he weighs in on are:

  • Ocean Acidification
  • Sea Level Rise
  • Temperature Increases
  • Floods
  • Regional Drought Frequency
  • Extreme Storm Events
  • Hurricanes
  • Fires
  • Algal Blooms
  • Changes in Ecosystems

That is a comprehensive list.  He includes references for your examination.  Click here to see the complete essay.

Loehle concludes saying: “Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.”

Read Loehle discussion of each of these topics.  Then spread the word.  You have to do it via the Internet and/or conversations with family, co-workers, and friends.   We cannot depend on the media as they just regurgitate whatever the alarmist say.  Partly because the media loves doom, gloom and blood to try to catch their reader’s interest.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Ecosystems, Environment, Ocean Acidification, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, United Nations

Lubos Motl’s 104 Reasons To Be A Skeptic

Posted on March 1, 2012 | Leave a comment

Lubos Motl’s skeptical website, The Reference Frame, is widely read and cited.  Motl counters John Cook’s assertions about man-made global warming.  Motl provides background science that will serve skeptics in any discussion and/or debate.  Motl introduces his material as follows:

John Cook, a former student of physics in Australia, has constructed an interesting website trying to attack the opinions of climate skeptics.

It’s been in my climate bookmarks for quite some time but no one really cared about it so I didn’t want to respond. However, his talking counter-points were recently adopted by an iPhone application. Moreover, Andrew Revkin promoted the website, too. So let us look at his points and counter-points.

Motl matches the headings from Cook’s listing of “myths” and Motl adds his view illustrating what the real story is. Below are two of the 104 topics so you can get a flavor of what is included. To read to all of Motl’s work click here.

On his (Cook) website, you can currently see 102 observations by the skeptics (or some skeptics); 2 of them were added by March 29th and I can’t constantly update this web page so that he’s likely to surpass his 104 points sometime in the future. Each of the “slogans” is accompanied by a short attempted rebuttal by John Cook. And if you click it, you get to a long rebuttal. So let’s look at them:

1. It’s the sun: I agree with Richard Lindzen that it’s silly to try to find “one reason behind all climate change”, because the climate is pretty complex and clearly has lots of drivers, and this applies to the opinion that “everything is in the Sun”, too. Cook shows that the solar irradiance is too small and largely uncorrelated to the observed changes of temperatures. I agree with that: a typical 0.1% change of the output is enough for a 0.025% change of the temperature in Kelvins which is less than 0.1 °C and unlikely to matter much. But I find it embarrassing for a student of solar physics such as himself to be so narrow-minded. The Sun influences the Earth’s atmosphere not only directly by the output but also indirectly, by its magnetic field and its impact on the cosmic rays (via solar wind etc.) and other things. He has completely ignored all these things. Of course, I am actually not certain that these effects are very important for the climate but the evidence – including peer-reviewed articles – is as diverse as the evidence supporting CO2 as an important driver.

104. Southern sea ice is increasing: Cook agrees but says that it surely has nothing to do with warming or global climate change. It must be due to “complex phenomena” such as changes of the winds and circulation. Note that such comments would be unthinkable if he tried to discuss the Northern sea ice. As we have noticed, all “warming” observations are about the climate, important signals that you should appreciate, worship, extrapolate, and be afraid of. On the other hand, all “cooling” observations are just an irrelevant weather that you should dismiss, humiliate, and spit on. With such a biased attitude, it shouldn’t be shocking that Mr Cook ends up with an irrational orthodoxy based on 104 largely obscure misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and myths – and that his opinions about the most important questions are upside down.

Go through all of them, you will might learn something that you didn’t know.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, glaciers, IPCC, Sea Ice, Solar Activity, sun and climate, United Nations

Reliable Solar Cycle Forecasting Requirements

Posted on February 28, 2012 | 1 comment

 

Dr David Hathaway is NASA’s solar cycle guru.  In 2010, he published in Solar Physics a review of the methods used to forecast solar cycle activity.   The review, titled “TheSolar Cycle”,  is worth reading.  He discusses many of the techniques currently in use that purport to be the method for solar cycle forecasting. 

This post will only look at the key features that Hathaway says must be explained by any viable theory or model in order to provide a reliable forecast. 

The Abstract for “The Solar Cycle”  follows:

The Solar Cycle is reviewed. The 11-year cycle of solar activity is characterized by the rise and fall in the numbers and surface area of sunspots. We examine a number of other solar activity indicators including the 10.7 cm radio flux, the total solar irradiance, the magnetic field, flares and coronal mass ejections, geomagnetic activity, galactic cosmic ray fluxes, and radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores that vary in association with the sunspots. We examine the characteristics of individual solar cycles including their maxima and minima, cycle periods and amplitudes, cycle shape, and the nature of active latitudes, hemispheres, and longitudes. We examine long-term variability including the Maunder Minimum, the Gleissberg Cycle, and the Gnevyshev–Ohl Rule. Short-term variability includes the 154-day periodicity, quasi-biennial variations, and double peaked maxima. We conclude with an examination of prediction techniques for the solar cycle.

Hathaway lists the critical features for making an accurate forecast:  

Understanding the solar cycle remains as one of the biggest problems in solar physics. It is also one of the oldest. Several key features of the solar cycle have been reviewed here and must be explained by any viable theory or model.  (I am adding several charts to aid in visualize his thinking.)

  • The solar cycle has a period of about 11 years but varies in length with a standard deviation of about 14 months.
  • Each cycle appears as an outburst of activity that overlaps with both the preceding and following cycles by about 18 months.
  • Solar cycles are asymmetric with respect to their maxima – the rise to maximum is shorter than the decline to minimum and the rise time is shorter for larger amplitude cycles.
  • Big cycles usually start early and leave behind a short preceding cycle and a high minimum of activity.
  • The activity bands widen during the rise to maximum and narrow during the decline to minimum.
These  sunspot charts show the last stages of cycle 21, cycles 23 and 23 fully and the current status of cycle 24.  The overlapping between the end of one cycle and the start of the other is apparent.   The relatively steep rise in the sunspot count at the begining of a new cycle and the more gradual decent.  Cycle 24’s rise is not nearly as steep as its predecessors.  Charts by Leif Svalgaard.
  • Sunspots erupt in low latitude bands on either side of the equator and these bands drift toward the equator as each cycle progresses.
  • At any time one hemisphere may dominate over the other but the northern and southern hemispheres never get completely out of phase.
  • Sunspots erupt in groups extended in longitude but more constrained in latitude with one magnetic polarity associated with the leading (in the direction of rotation) spots and the opposite polarity associated with the following spots.
  • The leading spots in a group are positioned slightly equatorward of the following spots and this tilt increases with latitude.

Butterfly Diagram: All the sunspots in a give cycle are plotted on the charts above. The initial sunspots appear at about 30° North and South lattitude. As new spots appear they tend to get closer to the equator. Each solar cycle ends, nominally, when the spots reach the equator. Charts by Solar Physics Group @ NASA

  • The polar fields reverse polarity during each cycle at about the time of cycle maximum.

Solar Magnetic Fields: This chart shows the North and South magnetic fields reversing at the end of a solar cycle. Note how weak the magnetic fields are for the start of the current cycle 24. Chart by Leif Svalgaard.

  • Cycle amplitudes exhibit weak quasi-periodicities like the 7 to 8-cycle Gleissberg Cycle.

The Gleissberg Cycle is a period of about 80 to 90 years that overlays the well established 11 year cycle.  The theory is that solar maxima and solar minima are forced by the gravitational pull of the major planets.  The specific alignment, particularily Jupiter and also Saturn Neptune and Uranus have a major effect on the Sun’s activity.  To see graphics of the alignment of these major planets, click here.

  • Cycle amplitudes exhibit extended periods of inactivity like the Maunder Minimum.
  • Solar activity exhibits quasi-periodicities at time scales shorter than 11 years.
  • Predicting the level of solar activity for the remainder of a cycle is reliable 2 – 3 years after cycle minimum.

Hathaway tells us that theory must be able to predict the preceding.  Until then,  people will continue to predict the features of the next solar cycle but it may be just luck if they get it right.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, IPCC, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, sun and climate, Sunspots, United Nations

Dr Evans Explains Why Climate Models Overstate Potential Global Warming

Posted on February 25, 2012 | Leave a comment

Last September, I posted:  Dr Evans:”Climate Models Are Violently At Odds With Reality”.   This posting is a Dr Evans up-date of the September information.  This time he adds a simple explanation of the central issue regarding CO2 caused global warming—will feedbacks from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 be positive or negative?  The Warmers claim that a 1C increase due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will really become a 3.3C  increase because of positive feedback.  We skeptics believe that the feedback will be negative and the warming will probably be in the range of 0.6C.

For those of you more inquisitive types, Dr Evans in his footnotes, gives more information and references to help you do some research of your own.

Click here to read Dr Evans full posting

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Environment, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Ocean heat content, Solar Activity, United Nations, Windpower

To Maintain Their Integrity, Scientists Need to Become Skeptics

Posted on November 27, 2011 | Leave a comment

If the first release of Climategate emails in November of 2009 wasn’t enough to convince people that a small group of superwarmer scientists have been advancing the theory of man-made global warming through manipulation, this newly released batch (generally called Climategate 2) should convince them.

First of all, why should anyone care if this “small” group of superwarmers is doing bad things?  The reason is that this small group controls the dialogue on this subject. It manipulates the data to comply with their point of view; it writes the critical parts of the IPCC reports; it decides what is published and what is not published; and, it punishes scientists and organizations that don’t toe the line.  While we are being squeezed financially, they are pulling in millions of dollars in grants and honors.

The people that need to step up and put an end to this charade are the good and descent scientists that have been taken in by the superwarmers.   They suffer from a confirmation bias that has to be pretty hard to sustain these days of no global temperature rise, falling sea levels and all the climategate email revelations, just to name a few things.   These scientists must stand up against the blind allegiance that their professional societies maintain to catastrophic man-made global warming theory.  Certainly there are enough reasons for them to become skeptics.   They should be comfortable in saying that until there is more proof and open discussions of the science of the global climate, they no longer are going to support the  warmer supergroup.  Until that happens, the media will continue to uncritically pass on to the public anything the superwarmers tell them because they always use in their defense “almost all scientist agree with the supergroup”.

By the way, for those of you are under the impression that members of the warmer supergroup have been investigated and exonerated, you need to read up on this and you will learn that the exoneration was predetermined.  For one good read on this, see here.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Ocean heat content, United Nations