Article reference:

Man-made Global Warming - The Debate is not over!

Global warming is going to wreak havoc with the world economy. That is the latest dire prediction based on the idea that our use of fossil fuels and our production and release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is responsible for an increase-to-come in temperatures. We've got to act now, we are being told. There is a strong consensus that we're in for some heavy heat and that industry is to blame for it. So energy use must be curtailed and polluters must be made to pay. UN General Secretary Kofi Annan says that there is "a frightening lack of leadership" regarding the steps to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He blasts the nay-sayers saying the science on climate change "is not science fiction." Those who try to sow doubt about it are "out of step, out of arguments and out of time," he is quoted as saying in this recent article.

All very good, and fine, but there is a small problem: when looking at the science, the facts don't seem to add up. That is what Christopher Monckton says in a two-part article that appeared in the UK's Sunday Telegraph. His conclusion: The science of global warming is being manipulated, we are addressing the wrong problem, and our solutions won't do what their proponents say they will.


Monckton adds that we are asking the developing nations that they should not follow the West's path to industrialization and relative prosperity because it's bad for the planet. Instead of pouring funds into development of valid energy alternatives, we are starting to trade carbon credits, but with regard to energy production, we keep things very much the same as they are.

The Third World is growing. It won't be told it can't enjoy the growth we've already had. It wouldn't sign Kyoto till it was exempted, so, under President Clinton, the US Senate voted unanimously to reject Kyoto. Whatever the West does to "Save the Planet" is mere gesture unless the developing world agrees to give up its right to grow as we've grown.

Now to be absolutely clear, I am not against changes. I believe we must develop real alternatives to revolutionize energy production, and I am sure this can be done. Abundant clean energy is possible. We must make the decision to invest in that particular part of our future. Our current energy technologies are ecologically not sustainable and it is high time we change. But I do not think we need a global warming scare to force such change, especially one based on shaky evidence.

Please read what Christopher Monckton has to say. He has analyzed the science and his view should not be lost in the din of media commotion and emotional appeals over the global warming emergency...

- - -

Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph

(The original was published in The Telegraph)

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth.

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe.

The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household.
Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.


Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts - more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.

Part Two:

Wrong problem, wrong solution

Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report.

In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold.

The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.

Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.
Here's how an apology is done. Last week I said that James Hansen had told the United States Congress that sea level would rise several feet by 2000, but it was the US Senate, and by 2100; I added a tautologous "per second" to "watts per square metre"; and I mentioned the perhaps apocryphal Arctic voyage of Chen Ho. Sorry.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on climate-change economics says the world must spend 1 per cent of GDP from now on to avert disaster. The current draft of the UN's 2007 report says up to 5 per cent. Sir Nick's team tell me: "We are confident that the UN will publish a range for costs next year in which ours will be centrally placed." So some quiet high-level co-ordination is going on. The oddest thing about Stern's curious report was its timing. Publication of the UN's next major science assessment is only months ahead. Why not wait and base the economics on that?

The UN needed Stern more than he needed the UN. Its 2001 report had numbers more extreme than anyone else's, so sceptics abounded. This time, an international spinfest is shutting off dissent in advance. First, the damage done by the hockey-stick graph had to be repaired, so a series of papers supporting its conclusions quickly appeared, many written by associates of its authors.

Next, the failure of temperature to rise as the UN projected had to be explained. Hence another flurry of learned papers, this time about the "ocean notion" - the maritime heat-sink into which the missing temperature rise might be vanishing.

Above all, it was vital that this time the UN's report should not be seen to print the biggest exaggerations around. Enter Stern.

My calculations last week had to be rubbished. Separately, The Sunday Telegraph's letters editor and I received emails saying I'd wrongly assumed the Earth was a "blackbody" with no greenhouse effect at all (I hadn't). The website, run by two of the "hockey-stick" graph's authors, said the same in a blog [post] entitled "Cuckoo science".

On Thursday, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror. Neither, she said, should have access to the media.

At whom is this spin aimed? At the Chinese, the Indians and the Brazilians. China has 30,000 coal mines. It is opening a new power station every five days till 2012. The Third World is growing. It won't be told it can't enjoy the growth we've already had. It wouldn't sign Kyoto till it was exempted, so, under President Clinton, the US Senate voted unanimously to reject Kyoto. Whatever the West does to "Save the Planet" is mere gesture unless the developing world agrees to give up its right to grow as we've grown.

Sir Nick says if we spend 1 per cent of GDP now and for ever we can reduce "the chances of temperature rises of 4-5C and above - at which levels some of the worst impacts occur". The crucial number when evaluating the income stream from forward investments like this is the discount rate: the annual percentage by which any forecast of tomorrow's revenue is cut to allow for the risks inherent in not getting it today. Stern discusses the rate at length, and even has a technical annexe on it, but, astonishingly, not once in 700 pages does he put a figure on it. I gave his team 24 hours' notice of the question: What discount rate or rates, and why? Six hours after my deadline, as the Treasury was closing, they said they might answer "next week". The following morning, with the page held for my copy, I rang and asked again. "There's nobody in who worked on that part of the report," they said. But they admitted they'd used several rates, all of them low because "if you're richer in future you value each unit of output a bit less", and because they hadn't discounted the future just because it was the future as that would be intertemporally inequitable (in English: not fair to the kids). Too low a discount rate makes spending 1 per cent of GDP now look cheaper than waiting.

They are also coy about what value our $500 billion a year would buy us. They say that if the world stabilises atmospheric CO2 at about 485 parts per million we'll have spent 1 per cent of GDP to get - er - a 1.1 per cent fall in consumption. If we stabilised at 400ppm, consumption would fall by only 0.6 per cent, but that's a pipedream: we're at 380ppm already, and, on Stern's figures, we'll reach 400 in just eight years.

By 2035, says Sir Nick, temperature will have risen by "over 2C". It sounds alarming. What he means, though, is over 2C since 1750, when we don't know what the temperature was. Stern's 485 parts per million by 2035 is based on the UN's worst case. Even then, the increase compared with today would be just 0.7C. On the UN's lower projection, implying 425ppm by 2035, only 0.3C.

The UK accounts for just 2 per cent of global emissions, and falling. Even if Britain stopped using energy altogether, global temperature by 2035 would be six thousandths of a degree C less than if we carried on as usual. If we shut down once a week on Planet Day, make that less than one thousandth of a degree. Even if every Western country complied with Kyoto (and most won't), Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma says temperature a century from now would be a 25th of a degree lower than without Kyoto.

In that context, the few femtowatts you will save by not leaving your television on standby don't matter. It is not that energy efficiency, renewables and recycling will not make enough difference. They will hardly make any.

We are addressing the wrong problem. In the UK, energy is about to run out. In 10 years, a third of our power stations will be worn out or against EU pollution laws. By 2035, oil prices could be ten times today's. Our children would be far better off if we sequestered North Sea oil by leaving it in the ground than if we sequestered carbon dioxide at Peterhead.

While the Government quixotically tilts at wind power, the Danes, who did it first, have stopped building bird-slicers. You need a wind farm the size of Greater Manchester to match the output of one nuclear power station, and you get not a watt if the wind isn't blowing. As for hydro, if you want to build a plant with more than a megawatt of output in Scotland, you can't, because for the past year two bureaucracies have been arguing about which of them should grant planning permission.

The UK needs to start building (not designing, or arguing about in ten-year planning enquiries) 12 nuclear power stations this year. Nuclear power does not emit CO2. The French, 80 per cent nuclear, have half the UK's carbon footprint. And what is Stern's policy on nuclear power? "We argue that a portfolio of technologies will be needed."

Sci-fi panics such as climate change are dangerous because they distract politicians from what really needs doing. Y2K bug: correct solution, laugh; actual solution, Y2K Office. Result: nothing, at great cost. Energy shortages and climate change (if you believe that man is responsible): correct solution, go nuclear and reverse 20th-century deforestation. Actual solution: windmills, rampant deforestation, EU paying farmers not to plant trees or anything else. Result, energy crisis, species loss and no fall in CO2.

Shouldn't we take precautions, just in case? No. The "precautionary principle" kills. Example. DDT: correct solution, limit it in agriculture but allow indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Actual solution: give the inventor a Nobel Prize, then say the chemical is cancerous (it's safe enough to eat) and ban it, especially for indoor spraying. Result, only this year, after 30 million and more have died from malaria, has the WHO agreed to recommend indoor spraying.

Carbon taxes? Bizarrely, the UK's climate-change levy taxes all forms of electricity generation, even if they don't emit CO2. David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, told the BBC last week how good it was. The BBC didn't argue.

Emissions trading? The daft EU scheme allows more emissions to be traded than are being emitted, except in the UK, whose business-unaware Government disadvantages us by imposing a lower limit and not even exempting the NHS. Result: poor hospitals have to buy emission rights from rich oil companies. Miliband told the BBC how good it was. The BBC didn't argue.

All such interventions advocated by the climate-change "consensus" will be expensively futile without the consent of the Third World's fast-growing nations. That consent will rightly be withheld until the UN produces soundly based, scientifically honest, fair and realistic projections. Meanwhile, cut out and keep this article. If Margaret Beckett has her way, you won't ever see one like it again.

Update November 2009:

Lorne Gunter: Cooking the climate change books

Last Friday it was revealed that someone as yet unknown had hacked into the computers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Hadley, U.K. The CRU -- or Hadley as it is often referred to -- is the source of one of the four main temperature records used by the United Nations and environmentalists to claim that the Earth is on the verge of a global meltdown. It is also home to some of the most prominent climate researchers in the world.

Stolen and then released were over 1,000 emails and 3,000 research files that appear to show that those at the CRU and other equally well-known climate scientists around the world have been working together for years to "cook" the data about climate change. The emails seem to suggest that much of what the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims is "settled science" is based on data manipulated to confirm assertions that man is dangerously altering our climate. Recent decades may not have been exceptionally warm. The planet may not be warming as fast as these scientists have claimed publicly -- and it looks as though they may have known it and tried to hide it.

See also:

Two More Global Warming False Alarms
The global warming debate has developed a pattern: In part A, a scientist makes a scary claim and gets headlines for himself, and his funding source, across the known world. In part B, a few months later new evidence blows the scary claim away--but with no press coverage of its demise.

Two more global warming scares have just been quietly blown away: the claim that global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes; and the claim that warming threatens to shut down the great Atlantic Ocean conveyor currents.

Inconvenient Facts About Climate Change (Global Warming)
"All the planets in our solar system are presently showing signs of increased temperature." If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II? The amount of debris spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activities alone could swamp the effect of greenhouse gases.

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming
"This is a fact that not many people know about, and quite a few people, would like that there was no evidence to back this fact, because some people would like the world to believe that human activity is the cause for global warming on Earth. I am not advocating that releasing harmful gases, and chemicals in the oceans and atmosphere are good, but after a few years of research, I have come to understand that global warming is happening in the Solar System, not just on Earth."

Forty-five nations answered France's call for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators
The words of warning about global warming from the top panel of international scientists Friday Feb. 2, 2007 were purposely blunt: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the cause is "very likely" man-made, and "would continue for centuries." Officially releasing a 21-page report in Paris on the how, what and why the planet is warming -- though not telling the world what to do about it -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave a bleak observation of what is happening now and an even more dire prediction for the future.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide. This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun's brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds.

The politics of global warming
The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we're going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we've got completely the wrong adaptive strategy.

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

The causes of global warming and climate change!
There are two competing theories for the current global warming trend.

The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use are responsible for the temperature increase.

The second theory is that the suns magnetic field and the solar wind modulates the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turns affects the low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

Climate change: The Deniers
Canada's National Post has a series of articles on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Several articles by sometimes eminent scientists that challenge the contention that global warming is a bad thing, or that global warming is due to our emission of carbon dioxide.

Polar caps wane as Mars tries global warming
Christensen also cautions against drawing any parallels between the warming on Mars and on Earth. He said: "The more we learn about Mars, the more intuition it gives us about Earth, but the systems are fundamentally different."

Yes, they don't have an industrial revolution and technological advance on Mars, at least as far as we know.

Top scientist debunks global warming
Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes. "When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate," Prof Plimer said.

A dissident view of water and warming
'I'm not a sceptic, I'm an angry professor!' Lance Endersbee claims the world water crisis has been underplayed and global warming overplayed, as a result of the pressures in science to conform. Endersbee's main focus is on the state of the world's groundwater, the rapid consumption of which has put the world on the edge of a little understood catastrophe, he says, because contrary to popular belief groundwater reserves are not replenished from the surface.

This page discusses Lance Endersbee's view on the decline of ground water as a resource in Australia, which he says has been played down while global warming is getting all the attention.

Local scientist calls global warming theory 'hooey'
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

Climate Expert Questions Gore's Global Warming Campaign
William Gray, 77, the principal force behind the annual hurricane forecasts done by Colorado State University's School of Atmospheric Science, has little good to say about Gore and his movie. "He is making statements that I could never make. He is making assumptions that are just not true. I think there are many factual errors in his movie," he said. Gray rejects Gore's assertion that hurricanes are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of global warming.

Ice Age Defrosted by Warming Ocean, Not Rise in CO2
Ice cores drawn from Antarctica and Greenland have shown that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere began to rise at roughly the same time as the vast ice sheets began to melt. But it remained unclear exactly which came first: melting ice and warming seas released more CO2 or more CO2 led to melting ice and warming seas. By studying sediment cores from the deep Pacific near the Philippines, paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and his colleagues revealed that the temperatures of the deepest seas rose by around 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) at least 1,000 years before sea-surface temperatures.

Global Warming: Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030. This, happening while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise, is in complete contradiction to the theory of human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming.

Video: Global Warming Tutorial by Australian Prof Bob Carter
This is a lecture on video in four parts. The link is part one. You will see links for parts 2, 3 and 4 on the YouTube page for part one. Most people accept the global warming theory on face value. The media are full of it and blame global warming for every storm and drought, but do not forget - in science it is best to look at all points of view before making up your mind. So here is Bob Carter's view and statistics. You do not have to be a scientist to understand what he says.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (PDF)

There has been a one-year trend of cooling temperatures globally, as verified by the major temperature tracking stations, in 2007. It is too early to say if this is a reversal of the warming observed for the last years, but it certainly is dramatic and it's unexpected.

Global warming is not as clear-cut a thing as we are expected to believe, nor is the theory that says the warming we observe is due to human-generated increase in atmospheric CO2. Evidently, the global warming debate is far from over.

But the important point is not whether there is, or not, global warming. Neither is it whether that warming is caused by humans. The important point is that our industrial activities are polluting our environment (air and water) in a completely untenable way. Planet Earth is becoming slowly uninhabitable for human life, because of dirty technologies polluting the environment both chemically and electromagnetically. THAT is the problem, not global warming.

Astrophysicist Links Temperature Change with Sun's Energy Output
"When the sun is slightly brighter, meaning giving more light to Earth's system, the temperature warms in the Arctic," said Soon. "With the cooling that we observed in the Arctic from the 1940s to the 1970s, guess what the sun is doing? It's actually dimming slightly, ever so slightly. And then, guess what happened after the late 1970s? The sun brightens again."

Dr. Soon works for the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics. He says while carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the warming period of the past three decades, the fact that global temperatures decreased during the middle of the 20th century suggest there is no connection.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Climate Science: Observations versus Models
In the case of the climate models being used by the IPCC, the assumption is that CO2 is a primary driver of climate. There is an intuitive basis for this assumption, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and both CO2 levels and temperature have risen sharply in the past century. In addition, a strong correlation has been observed between temperature and CO2 levels in long-term records revealed by ice-core samples. Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels is continuing to pollute the atmosphere (and the oceans) with ever-higher levels of CO2...

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Lest anyone think we are dealing with a few isolated fools who just don't get it, here is a listing of
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 500 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
The movie is a rather serious discussion of the merits of CO2 induced, man-made global warming...

Prominent Physicist resigns from American Physical Society over Climategate
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society - an important moment in science history
"I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis"

August 2012:
Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists

At a stroke this case may affirm that up to one quarter of our planet's climate records have been fraudulently audited. As such this provides compelling legal ammunition to other pending/ongoing lawsuits that have arisen in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal. Immediate ramifications will be felt in Canada where popular skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is defending two vexatious libel suits against IPCC climatologists...

April 2013:
Scientists Baffled as Report Proves Global Warming Has Stopped



The carbondioxid level is continuously reduced in the atmosphere to specific level that is varying depending on the temperature in the atmosphere and the oceans.
The weight of CO2 is pressing the gas down in the oceans where it is solvable. With increasing depth the gas is compressed, and at about 500 meters (5 atm pressure) the gas is compressed to liquid CO2 that is heavier than water and sinks to, and into the sea-bottom’s sediment-layer.
At those ocean-depth the carbon-dioxide acid level is so high that all the organic material that have sunk is solved to its molecule-levels and transformed to new nutrients that follow the bottom-streams that is up-welling outside the well known coasts of South-America and Africa and causes the fish-rich waters there.
With growing layers at the bottom, up to about 3000 meters where the CO2-acid is less concentrated, the organic material is lesser solved and a hard “concrete lock” of lime-layer is growing over the sediment and its liquid CO2.
Over that depth, that is called the calcite compensation level, the bottom is covered by white fossil-shells.
From the hot volcanic depth hydrogen gas and hydrogen-radicals is leaking upwards and react with the CO2 to carbon-hydrogen molecules with is gas and oil.
So, the gas and oil that is called fossil-fuels is not of fossil orogins.

The debate on global warming may not be over, but whether we will be shoveling snow or not 40 or 50 years down the road is the least of our troubles. What is really ominous is the population crash when the oil and coal runs out and perhaps the acidity of the ocean.

An answer to a question we have not been asking is; "We should not be using our carbon fuels for so trivial a purpose as to merely generate heat and therefore electricity in a world where every week the sun beams down enough energy on the state of Arizona alone to supply the whole world with non transportation energy during that time". Those fuels should be devoted to chemical stock and aviation. Burning carbon is akin to burning furniture to keep warm. Oil will probably run out in another hundred years or so and practical coal probably in another two or three hundred or so. What do we have planned for the remaining million years this nation is scheduled to survive? Our constant drum beat about not being dependent on foreign oil is 180 degrees off. If we were really greedy we would use foreign oil as much as possible. If a major war should loom after our oil runs out we will be high and dry, and maybe defeated.

But if our oil policy seems foolish, our atomic fuel policy must seem like insanity by comparison. At least the carbon will still be on the surface of the earth, extremely expensive to turn into chemicals, but not impossible. Uranium once burned will be gone forever. Our progeny will curse us if they come across a very valuable use for uranium and it is gone. If that purpose were to be the only practical way to get rid of a meteorite scheduled to destroy the earth, for instance, they will be cursing us with their dying breath. They will look back on our problems with those jerks in Afghanistan with fond nostalgia.

- - -

Charles Weber adds a reference to "some speculation of mine about climate change at the close of the Permian":


by Charles Weber, MS

A tsunami from a bolide (extra terrestrial object) impact would have overturned anoxic water along thousands of miles of coastline and thus brought methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, I suspect that the bulk of the sudden rise in organically derived atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Permian's close as determined by isotopic analysis of carbon was from a drastic overturn of the anoxic ocean by a sudden cooling of the surface water. The drop in heavy carbon isotope could not have been from volcanic action or oxidation of land biomass alone...

Comments on the Scientific Consensus of Climate Change

Roger A. Rydin
Associate Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia


Just the other day at my granddaughter’s birthday party in Chapel Hill, one of the parents of a toddler asked me about Global Warming. He said, “Why can’t scientists give us ordinary people a clear answer about climate change? Don’t they have the right answer all worked out, so they can show us the proof? You are a scientist, so don’t you know something about it?” These are fair questions, which beg a thoughtful answer.

I admitted that this was not my particular field of study, but I didn’t think that the data was at all conclusive as to whether or not climate change was real. I told him that contemporary scientists were often wrong about things, for example, about the Earth being at the center of the universe, which was subsequently proven to be untrue. Nonetheless, it got Galileo into a lot of trouble. Even if 90% of the scientists are in consensus on any given subject, does that mean that they are right, or are the other 10% right, or just a single dissident? After all, science is not a popularity contest, like American Idol. The winner is not the one who gets the most votes, even if the voting is restricted to highly qualified voters.

Global Warming Facts

Last April, at the 2006 AAAS-SWARM meeting at the University of Tulsa, the keynote speaker, Professor Maureen Raymo from Boston University, gave a talk about the historical record on carbon dioxide and Ice Ages. Data had been reconstructed over the millennia from ice borings, rock formations, etc., and was connected to modern data that has been recorded over the past century. Several striking things come out of these studies. First of all, there are known cycles of hundreds of thousands of years to tens of thousands of years, where data patterns repeat. One of these cycles is related to the net motion of all the planets in the solar system, and another is related to the wobble in the earth’s axis. The other striking thing is that there were periods in history where the carbon dioxide levels were an order of magnitude greater than they are today! That means that we are not in danger of adding a small amount of extra carbon dioxide, and crossing a tipping point where all hell breaks loose. Carbon dioxide is sequestered in plants, oceans, rocks, etc., and movements between these reservoirs occur when the balance is upset. This particular scientist carefully avoided making any conclusions as to where the data from the last century may be pointing, because she sees the picture on a much longer time scale.

On Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Page A13, Robert J. Samuelson, contributing editor to Newsweek and columnist for the Washington Post, published "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth." He stated, “Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.” Specifically, Samuelson said that it was unlikely that any huge expenditures made to solve the problem of global warming, even if they could be justified politically, would have much practical effect.


The real engineering problem is to obtain the energy that we and the rest of the world need without making the carbon dioxide levels appreciably higher. One suggested method is the use of ethanol and biomass to replace the use of oil. That is not a solution per se, since these are carbon based fuels. With this approach, the best we can do is to run in place by burning something we made from using atmospheric carbon dioxide to put its carbon dioxide back into the air. We can never decrease carbon dioxide levels this way!

Conservation is touted as a solution, but again this is just running in place in a different way. Certainly, some current energy resources could be used more efficiently and displace for a time the construction of new energy sources. But there is a thermodynamic limit to how much efficiency can be achieved. And population increases, and especially the increasing economic development of huge nations such as China and India, argues that new energy sources will indeed be needed.

Why not use solar cells or windmills? To replace one modern 1200 MWE electric power plant with solar collectors would require the exclusive use of the entire surface area of a modest city like Charlottesville or Chapel Hill. I for one cannot conceive of any such amount of land being made available anywhere in the states of Virginia or North Carolina for this purpose. The eventual need is not for one such plant, but for tens of them! Windmills have a nominal power of about 1 MWE, so the number needed to replace a single such power plant is about a thousand. That means that every hill crest in either state would have to be filled with such devices, as well as select areas off of both coasts. Note the current political difficulties about the proposal to site a small windmill farm off the coast of Nantucket, or near the Appalachian Trail in Maine!

And what is the actual operating experience of a country such as Germany, which has an extensive number of windmills to go with its large strip-mined-lignite burning power plants and its nuclear power plants that are scheduled to be phased out? Here is what the Germans conclude in their E.ON NETZ WIND REPORT 2005, “In order to guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind farms produce little or no power, e.g., during periods of calm or storm-related shutdowns, traditional power station capacities must be available as a reserve. This means that wind farms can only replace traditional power station capacities to a limited degree.” E.ON Netz GmbH is a major German grid operator serving a population of 20 million people living in 40% of the country's land area. It runs 32,500 km of high-voltage and extra-high voltage power lines, and is responsible for integrating 7,000 MWE of wind power, nearly half of all that installed in Germany. Germany's 16,394 MWE of wind power produced 26,000,000 MWh, which is around 4.7% of Germany's gross demand, and is operating at a load factor (percent of the time it operates) of approximately 0.19. A typical nuclear power plant operates at a load factor near 0.9.


To me, the only practical solution to the energy problem, one that could be achieved with today’s technology, is a large increase in the use of nuclear power. Nuclear power supplies 20% of the electricity in the US, and 80% of the electricity in France.

Llewellyn King, who publishes a newsletter, made just such a point about restarting nuclear power plant construction in the US at an American Nuclear Society meeting several years ago, when he said and I paraphrase, “Nuclear Power will be accepted again when the Myth of Global Warming overtakes the Myth of Nuclear Disaster from an accident like Three Mile Island.” It seems that King was prophetic; at least 10 new nuclear power plant construction permit applications are currently under consideration.

But isn’t nuclear power dangerous? What do you do with the nuclear waste? Where do we get new fuel and at what environmental cost? What about proliferation? I’ll try to answer each of these concerns in turn.

The only two nuclear power plant accidents that ever happened were at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, where no one was hurt, and at Chernobyl in Ukraine, where a recent UN report confirmed about 40 deaths of heroic firefighters, and added some arguable additional hypothetical deaths from released radioactivity primarily in the form of cesium and iodine. There are no modern nuclear power plants made without a containment building, so Chernobyl cannot happen again. Also contrast this accident to the more than 2000 immediate deaths from the release of pesticide chemicals in Bopal, India many years ago. Modern nuclear plant containment buildings can withstand the crash of a large passenger jet without breaking. You can’t say that about any chemical plant or refinery!

Where do we store the nuclear waste? My answer for the long term is, definitely not at Yucca Mountain! Nor should we store it at individual power plants. Yucca Mountain should be used as temporary storage for a few years until we reprocess the spent fuel elements into new fuel. After all, 80% of the nuclear fuel in those spent fuel elements has yet to be burned! We just have to do a bit of waste recycling. The really dangerous hot stuff is in the form of fission products. After reprocessing, all of this can be immobilized in glass blocks and stored in a place the size of your back yard swimming pool, probably at a site in a National Laboratory where defense waste has been successfully isolated. The rest of the uranium and plutonium should be made into new fuel elements called MOX for mixed oxide. It is a misnomer to say that we don’t currently use MOX. Once a new uranium fuel element is put in service, plutonium dioxide builds up and some of it also burns to produce power. We take the fuel elements out of the reactor when the fission product absorption and fuel burn-up get too large to keep the fission reaction going. During refueling, we add some fresh fuel elements, move partly burnt elements to new positions where they burn better, and remove the most burnt elements and store them in pools or dry storage racks until they cool down.

If we can reuse spent fuel by reprocessing, does this mean that we won’t have to mine and enrich any more uranium? Probably not, since uranium is barely radioactive, so it is easy and relatively cheap to handle, and enrichment by centrifuge is becoming a mature technology. MOX has to be handled by remote manipulators in glove boxes, so it is more expensive to handle. But the technology to do this exists, and MOX elements are being used in a demonstration at a power plant in North Carolina. In any event, countries like India and China do not have an inventory of spent fuel like Russia and the US, so they will be competing on the world market for uranium ore supplies and doing their own enrichment. At the same time, we are blending down surplus weapons grade uranium from Russia and the US with depleted uranium to make new fuel elements, thus obtaining them without any mining or enrichment steps, and reducing a proliferation problem at the same time.

As far as proliferation is concerned, there has never been a case where spent fuel has been used by a developing country in an attempt to make a weapon. Pakistan developed centrifuges to enrich uranium, and this is the path chosen by Iran. Iraq tried to do enrichment by magnetic isotope separation, mimicking a process developed at ORNL during the 2nd World War. India used heavy water to make plutonium, and this is the path chosen by North Korea. So in this regard, President Jimmy Carter was dead wrong when he stopped fuel reprocessing in the US. He made a political decision based upon faulty premises and reasoning, not unlike the decision to be made on global warming, and the US has paid a heavy price for this decision ever since.

Finally, if we are ever to get rid of our dependence on oil, we have to go to using hydrogen to fuel our automobile engines. The only way to get hydrogen is to make it with some type of energy source. One way is to decompose steam at high temperature, called steam reforming, but this would have to be done without burning coal or oil. Such a process was envisioned for the High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) developed by the Germans but never perfected. The South Africans are proposing to develop a power system based upon numerous small HTGRs, but there are no current plans to go further. The only practical way then is electrolysis, or decomposition of water by electricity, as demonstrated in high school chemistry laboratories. Done on a big scale using electricity from dedicated nuclear power plants, we could make enough hydrogen to replace the gasoline engine! Now, that is something that even Al Gore has recommended in his book, Earth in the Balance.

Would this solve the problem of global warming? I don’t even know if there is such a problem. But it would certainly clean up the air from fossil fuel burning. And it would make people feel good instead of having to say, “Don’t just stand there, do something!”

A comment received by email and my reply to the sender...

Hi Sepp,

There is a third alternative to the climate change debate: that is it
happening, and in fact is happening to many planets in the solar system,
ans so therefore it is not primarily man made. 

Here is the argument:

A Scientific Blueprint for Ascension

So then according to this argument, the warming/change is a sign of a good thing, and so should not be feared.


- - - - -

Hi Tom,

thanks for the link to that article.

Although I am sympathetic to what is stated there, I am a bit weary because we're basically speculating.

Preferably, I think, we should be ready for any eventuality and not put our future in the hands of fate or channeled readings.

It might well be, in other words, that the warming cycle is sun dependent (several scientists say so as well) but whether this will lead to changes in frequency or ascension as described, is not something I would venture to speculate on.

Kind regards

Comment by email:

Thanks for this, Sepp.

No doubt others in the F-E "community" are thinking similarly to what I am, that being to not only use energy from the Quantum Vacuum, but also to convert the excess planetary heat all around us - most of it possibly from industry - to electricity, using some of the new thermo-electric technology, such as that from PowerChips of Gibraltor. It would effectively be free cooling in devastatingly hot places. If the current CO2 blanket cannot be utilized to feed plankton to eventually refurbish our ocean marine life, then the excess heat itself could be used to extract carbon from that excess CO2, and store it in underground "warehouses" as carbon-black briquets. Just some ideas.

Best wishes,

Hal Ade
GAtineau, QC.

A contribution to the Climate Debate

The "Climate" issue was put on the political - UN - agenda in 1972 by Mr. Maurice Strong et al, when he commissioned Barbara Ward and René Dubos to concoct a book entitled "Only One Earth". The book makes interesting reading. It served to set the tone and the agenda for the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm during June of the same year, 1972. Mr. Strong not only commissioned the writing of the book, he was also the secretary-general of the Stockholm Conference. The book abounds in phrases that have been repeated over and over again.

In Chapter 13 (an ominous number indeed) entitled "The Shared Biosphere", CO2 and climate change are squarely put on the table. On page 194, Ward and Dubos write: "It is not therefore irrational to wonder whether a massive man-induced increase in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide, coinciding with one of nature's own warmings up, might not change a slight move at the center of the seesaw into a violent shifting of weight and the risk of major and unpredictable global consequences." Words that still freely flow, today, from the pens of those who write the speeches for Tony Blair, Kofi Annan and other world leaders who push the “Climate Agenda”.

In the same Chapter, on page 195, Ward and Dubos hint at their true intentions: "All these concerns with global air pollution lie beyond the effective protection of individual governments." But it is only in the book's last chapter, "Strategies for Survival", that Ward and Dubos show their cards: "…, it is only by forthright cooperation and action at the global level that nations can protect mankind from inadvertent and potentially disastrous modification in the planetary weather system, over which no nation can assert sovereignty. The underlining is mine.

On page 213, Ward and Dubos plant the seed for the IPCC (Geneva) and related organisations such as UN/FCCC (Bonn): "This implies cooperative monitoring, research, and study on an unprecedented scale. It implies an intensive world-wide nertwork for the systematic exchange of knowledge and experience. It implies a quite new readiness to take research wherever it is needed, with the backing of international financing. It means the fullest cooperation in converting knowledge into action - …"

On page 195, Ward and Dubos already explained that "sophisticated simulation" (not just facts and verifiable observations !!!) shall form the tools for the scientists to fill the need for "far more knowledge", as they write: "We need far more knowledge, far more sophisticated simulation of climatic effects on giant computers, far more monitoring on a global basis, far more exact information on what we are actually doing in the atmosphere that the whole of mankind must share." The underlining is mine. Shifting from weather to pollution, Ward and Dubos then continue: "All these concerns with global air pollution lie beyond the effective protection of individual governments."

And then, Ward and Dubos lay it out in no uncertain terms: "Where pretentions to national sovereignty have no relevance to perceived problems, nations have no choice but to follow the course of common policy and coordinated action. In three vital, related areas this is now the undeniable case - the global atmosphere, the global oceans, and the global weather system. All require the adoption of a planetary approach by the leaders of nations, no matter how parochial their point of view toward matters that lie within the national jurisdiction …. It is no small undertaking, but quite possibly the very minimum required in defense of the future of the human race."

Thirty-four years after the publication of "Only One Earth", we witness what the "sophisticated simulation" has produced. Man-made climate forecasts pouring from the computer simulations announced by Ward and Dubos, and mainstream media predicting havoc and catastrophe. Those who challenge the outcomes of IPCC's "sophisticated simulation" models are bluntly positioned as "terrorists" who need to be silenced. Why ? Not because they threaten the survival of mankind, but because they interfere with the greater plan, i.e. with the plan to do away with the principle of the sovereignty of individual nations.

Ending their book, Ward and Dubos refer to this greater plan, to this "vision of unity", as "a hard and inescapable scientific fact". The authors' ideal world is one where "the practices and institutions with which we are familiar inside our domestic societies would become, suitably modifed, the basis of planetary order." The underlining is mine. Why this vision is a "scientific fact" is left undiscussed.

Planetary order, that's the true goal the Climate Clergy is really serving.

Bert Schwitters

A friend from Sweden commented on this article:

Hi Sepp,

Just because repressed information not reported in main-stream media often is correct does not mean that is always the case.

The green-house denialist Christopher Monckton is a far right-winger (and crack-pot?).

His arguments are intellectually dishonest and made by selectively omitting half the story.

Look at:

Wikipedia on Monckton

For some insight into how the US coal- & oil lobby operate to spread lies about global warming look at.

Their tactics are exactly the same as the US cigarrett makers used for decades.

My reply was:


the attack on Monckton in the first article does not seem to contest any of Monckton's arguments and statements. It is more a collection of things to make people think he's untrustworthy.

Are there any specific things that Monckton said in his article that you can tell me how and why they are wrong?

I know it seems strange to challenge the idea that global warming is man made or even to challenge the idea that there is any extraordinary warming, or any rise in sea levels. Just about everyone is on the global warming bandwagon, saying that if we can just put less CO2 into the atmosphere, we'll be fine. But that is apparently not so.

Let's hear the actual arguments. Are there any specifics that you could give that would convince me that Monckton has lied?

Kind regards

I read the article with great interest as it does seem likely that governments will exagerate the threat of climate change to increase their power and control. It all sounded good but to be honest I didn't understand enough of the science he puts forward to be swayed either way.

George Monbiot counters some of the specifics of the article at,,1947248,00.html

My understanding is that free energy technologies are suppressed and the public manipulated by projected energy crises or climate change.

To me the most compelling reason not to worry about climate change is that 19th century predictions would reckon London to be buried in several feet of horse manure by now.

Technology is progressing at an ever increasing rate. Even if the means to produce cheap, abundant, clean energy are not here today then they will be within the next 100 years.

Monckton hits back at Monbiot here:,,1947976,00.html

I still dont understand though.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one. Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

I started to look at the cause for global warming by looking at the data. Here are my result. The leading climate scientists use misleading and deceptive methods when they analyze climate data. Most climate scientists have only studied thermodynamics and meteorology and because of that favor greenhouse gases as a cause for global warming. They are very good at lobbying.

After seeing the March 8 BBC-4 documentary, and reading the above commentary by Per Strandberg, I can only come to the conclusion that former Vice President Al Gore presented a falsified CO2/Temperature correlation in his documentary by shifting the CO2 curve backward in time by about 800 years to make it match the Temperature curve. If he had really wanted to show cause and effect, he should have shifted it back even further to make CO2 precede the Temperature rather than follow it exactly!

The sun drives the Temperature, which after a delay in ocean response drives the CO2, and not the other way around.

I was not specific enough in my essay, printed above, about Samuelson's article on the impossibility of doing anything about Global Warming. If the Sun is at fault, there is indeed nothing we can do.

Nevertheless, we ought to clean up the air as much as possible to reduce pollution, smog and respiratory problems for our citizens.

Roger Rydin
Associate Professor Emeritus
University of Virginia

Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming

PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November. Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."

The arena of the glittering "Second Great Debate" will be the elegant, Victorian-Gothic Library of the Oxford Museum of Natural History, which was the setting for the "Great Debate" between the natural scientist T. H. Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce on the theory of evolution, following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Lord Monckton says he chose this historic venue "not only because the magnificent, Gothic architecture will be a visually-stunning setting for the debate but also because I hope that in this lofty atmosphere the caution and scepticism of true science will once again prevail, this time over the shibboleths and nostrums of the false, new religion of climate alarmism."

Lord Monckton's resounding challenge to Al Gore reads as follows --

"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question, 'That our effect on climate is not dangerous,' to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President's choosing.

"Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President's prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save the Queen!"

SOURCE Center for Science and Public Policy

Tai Robinson commented by email:

People should be aware of one error.

The US Senate never voted on Kyoto. The Clinton administration never sent it to the Senate for ratification, and it was Al Gore who set the standard that we would not ratify it as long as developing nations were exempt.

The Senate did defeat a carbon-cutting bill by a vote of 95-0.