Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
I'd like to think you're right about a mining boom, but there are some real wackos out there in the the radical environmental movement that are fighting every possible move to restore this country's industrial capacity (as your posts have often indicated), not that you aren't aware, but others reading this may not realize how sinister this movement has become.
Really got an ear full lately, but of course from the other side of the coin!
Not that I'm for irresponsibly strip mining the planet mind you, but mining in a responsible manner is possible, and is far more necessary than many people realize, at least as a first step in this country regaining it's balance toward economic recovery.
So, the words Autumn and Fall are not to be capitalized?
They are in my world!

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new?"It has been already, in the ages before us. Ecc 1: 9-10

Tom Bawden The Observer, Sunday 19 June 2011

Prices of 17 rare earth metals used in hi-tech devices has soared amid China's restriction on exports of such minerals. Photograph Barry Sweet/Polaris

The price of rare earth metals, used in items raging from computer hard drives and wind turbines to plasma televisions and smartphones, has more than doubled to record levels in the past two weeks, after a clampdown on illegal mining by China, the world's dominant producer of such elements.

The increases have fuelled concern that the world is hurtling towards a chronic shortage of rare earth metals, which could put everyday products out of the reach of large parts of the global population.

Europium oxide, an element with phosphorescent properties used in energy-saving light bulbs, plasma TVs and smartphones, has nearly tripled from about $1,260 a kilogram to a record $3,400.

Dysprosium oxide, a key additive used in the neodymium-iron-boron magnets found in computer hard drives and wind turbines, doubled from about $720 a kg to a record $1,470 over the same period. That follows a near tenfold rise in the price of dysprosium oxide in the year to June.

Mike O'Driscoll, editor of Industrial Minerals, says: "Most experts in the industry think we are going to reach a crisis point in 2014 and 2015. There are 200 to 300 developers trying to bring new projects onstream to increase supply, but many of these are in the early stages and it may be another five or 10 years before they are operating."

Prices of the 17 so-called rare earth metals have risen in recent years because China, which produces 97% of global output, has significantly reduced exports and built stockpiles. Although China only has about a third of global rare earth deposits, it dominates the market, having forced most competitors out of business by undercutting them.

At the same time, demand for rare earth metals has rocketed as the digital revolution has produced a huge array of popular hi-tech products such as iPods and smartphones, while fast-growing emerging markets have created millions of newly wealthy consumers to buy them.

The latest leap in prices came after the Chinese government announced the closure of 35 small mines in Inner Mongolia as part of a clampdown on illegal mining that is expected to be followed by further closures elsewhere in the country. A few days later, it emerged that China was planning to stockpile heavy rare earth metals such as europium oxide and dysprosium.

Furthermore, concern is mounting that China will shortly announce plans to extend its tough export curbs on rare earths. The country slashed its export quotas by 72% in the second half of 2010 and reduced them by a further 35% in the first half of 2011 as it seeks to preserve supplies of key industrial ingredients.

Global demand for rare earth metals is forecast to rise by 48% to 185,000 tonnes by 2015. Although a host of companies outside China are rushing to produce rare earth metals, they are not expected to keep up with rising demand and experts are predicting a shortfall of up to 50,000 tonnes by 2015 – and a corresponding jump in prices. Supplies should then begin to increase, and prices fall, as more new mines come onstream, says O'Driscoll.

Nigel Tunna, managing director at Metal Pages, a website which tracks the prices of rare earth metals, says the big problem is that nobody seems to know what the effect of the looming shortage will be and therefore how to prepare for it. It largely depends on how quickly and effectively manufacturers can substitute other raw materials for rare earths and the fear is that, in many cases, it could be quite difficult, Tunna says.

"There could conceivably be problems getting everyday devices and it could pose a threat to quite a lot of developing technology that might have incorporated rare earths. But the bottom line is, nobody really knows quite what the implications are going to be and we're all worried."
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
In regards to the metals, the one we wont have to worry about is lithium. One of the companies which extracts it actually has to pump alot of it back into the ground due to not enough demand. They are supposed to be able to double the world's current output if needed.

Yes wook, I know the article didnt mention it. But it is mentioned elsewhere.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
article did not mention lithium as a rare earth
if you need to drink some
Lithia Water

Lithia Park in Ashland is named after the Lithia water that comes from the many mineral springs that are found here. But some people don't find it a pleasant experience to drink the stuff. Defined in the dictionary as a mineral water containing lithium salts used as a diuretic and in the treatment of rheumatism, it was the reason that Ashland was once a destination for people who wanted to experience the health benefits of Lithia water. Ashland's Lithia water contains 39.85 grams of sodium chloride, 47.66 grams of sodium sulfate, 20.22 grams of magnesium sulfate and other minerals as well. All that salt may not be good for you on a long-term basis, but that magnesium, in sufficient quantity can do wonders for easing the stiffness in muscles (Doan's Pills for backaches contains magnesium and Epsom salt is magnesium sulfate). Loosening up stiff muscles could surely help anyone feel better.

Jackson Wellsprings, about three miles from downtown Ashland on highway 99N, makes good use of these mineral rich waters by channeling it from the earth from which it flows, into their 50x100 foot outdoor swimming pool. The water runs about 80 degrees year round and Jackson Wellsprings is open year round, so here's your opportunity to visit Ashland in the winter and find out why Japanese Snow Monkeys like sitting around in hot mineral baths during a snow storm. After you've gotten yourself all warmed and rejuvenated there, you can dry off, bundle up and come over to Stratford Inn and relax in the comfort of one of our cozy rooms.
17 rare earths
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Freak cold weather grips southern Brazil
( Updated June 29, 2011 01:12 PM Comments (0) 

RIO DE JANEIRO (Xinhua) – The southern parts of Brazil, a tropical country, have been stricken by cold snaps since Monday, driving down temperatures to record-low levels and bringing snow in some areas, a local weather service has reported.

The weather monitoring department of Santa Catarina state said the temperature fell to 8.8 Celsius degrees below zero in the small town of Urupema on Tuesday, while in Cambara do Sul, in Rio Grande do Sul state, along the southern border, the temperature dropped to minus 6.2 degrees.

The three cities of the southern region on Tuesday also recorded record-low temperatures for the year, and the lowest temperature was monitored in Curitiba, capital of Parana state, where the temperature hovered around one degree above zero.

In Sao Paulo state, in the southeastern region, temperatures also fell to record-low levels: in Sao Paulo, the state capital, the mercury fell to 2.3 degrees, the lowest since 2003, and in Campos do Jordao, a mountainous town, the temperature dropped to 3.8 degrees below zero, the lowest since 1998.

Several towns of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina even had snow on Monday.

The weather service predicted that the cold weather would stay for the next few days, and there would be fresh snow in some areas.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Yes wook, I know the article didnt mention it. But it is mentioned elsewhere.
not on this thread nor the previous post..
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Germany to shovel climate fund dollars into coal plants
Posted on July 13, 2011 by Ryan Maue

Less than a month after the failed Bonn UN climate confab, Germany has announced a most audacious energy policy:  in order to shutter nuclear plants (but not completely scuttle their economy), the German government will direct climate fund cash to building coal and natural gas plants.  You can’t make this stuff up.

Germany plans to dump nuclear power by 2022 but clearly needs to meet burgeoning electricity demand especially for a still powerful manufacturing economy dependent upon exports.  Solar panels at their latitude and windmills are not going to suffice, so the solution is more coal.  The environmental movement must be apoplectic with so many politically correct wires crossing at once.

With yesterday’s story of “wide blackouts” expected to affect Europe (during winter, no less) due to Germany’s anti-nuclear decision by Chancellor Merkel, Germany has decided not to freeze during the winter by relying on renewable energy resources:

The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible.

Will Merkel cave or shovel climate fund cash into coal bu

This entry was posted in climate_change and tagged coal, Germany.
? WTF? US Geological Survey studying rice, fungus, & climate Give this lady an Order of Australia medal ?Like2 bloggers like this post. 

99 Responses to Germany to shovel climate fund dollars into coal plants
Brian H says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I think maybe she needs to get the Thorium religion, and solve all the “problems” at once.

But in any case, something productive of lotsa energy has to be online. In this as in all markets, the Invisible Hand has brass knuckles for use if needed.

Huth says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Oh well, it’s quite encouraging that when the chips are down pragmatism comes first.

barnacle bill says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm
It’s something we should have done long ago, with the coal reserves we are sitting on, it’s a blindingly obvious route to take.
Only the whole debate has been corrupted by the climate changers.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!"
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Al Gore, "The center of the earth is millions of degrees hot..."  Yeah, and it killed the dinosaurs, too...

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
So, the words Autumn and Fall are not to be capitalized?
They are in my world!

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new?"It has been already, in the ages before us. Ecc 1: 9-10
Remarkable. So now , on top of all the other flaws in the global warming theory, we learn that carbon dioxide isn't actually that much of a greenhouse gas at all ?! The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is fundamental to the theory - no insulating shied of CO2 warming things up, no global warming.
Hope this data gets the circulation it deserves.
[quote author=Fsbirdhouse link=topic=12494.msg153704#msg153704 date=1311871690]
Al Gore, "The center of the earth is millions of degrees hot..."  Yeah, and it killed the dinosaurs, too...

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Thursday, July 28, 20114 Recent Scientific Blows to the Global Warming Theory

Wikimedia Commons Image
Activist Post

The science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory appears to be falling apart with each new scientific study. Global warming, now often referred to as "climate change," is still reported as fact in every establishment publication despite increasing evidence to the contrary.  It's difficult to argue that the climate is not shifting in some noticeable way, yet recent reports clearly show that the science is not as settled as some global warming advocates would suggest.

In fact, since the Climategate scandal broke, where top climate scientists were caught manipulating data to fit the theory, polls have shown the number of global warming believers has plummeted to new lows. Notably, this has occurred while every major media outlet has promoted the theory as environmental law.  The record number of skeptics has inspired Al Gore to create a new climate re-education project where he claims "The climate crisis is real and we know how to solve it."

Even though Gore claims to know how to solve an unproven theory, the proposed solutions to global warming are now drawing scathing criticism from some world leaders like Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Klaus, an economist who lived through the rise and fall of communism, recently said that the climate change movement is a threat to democracy.

"I consider (the global warming doctrine) a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature," Klaus said to an audience of the Australian-based think-tank Institute of Public Affairs.  Klaus also exposed phony environmentalists, "They don't care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them."

Rhetoric aside, the science now pouring in appears to further debunk the anthropogenic global warming theory.  Here are four recent developments that damage the theory:

1. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct following his "veracity" in emotionalizing a debunked topic.  Get ready for Polarbeargate.

2. Today, new NASA data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism: "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."

3. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that is said to directly contradict the climate change debate in the political arena.  Apparently, so much so that the scientists have been gagged from discussing their findings reportedly proving that cosmic (space-based) energy has a far greater effect on the climate than previously believed.

4.  A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. The findings have been accepted to the point of suggesting using sulfur to combat global warming; "Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geo-engineering feat to cool the planet."  If anything, this study proves that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory is unproven.

The stakes are incredibly high in the climate change debate, and global solutions are being offered to us by some less-than reputable leaders, including the international banking cartel.  We should remain skeptical and continue to gather more evidence, or the proposed solutions for the climate might lead to other changes that we could live to regret
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:NASA Data Pit Scientific Method Against Climate Astrology

James Taylor

The Scientific Method is a beautiful thing. By requiring that scientific hypotheses be testable and subject to objective verification, the Scientific Method distinguishes the pursuit of objective knowledge (science) from faith-based principles and circular logic. The Scientific Method was instrumental in pulling Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages. Yet 1,000 years later, regarding one of the most scientifically and politically important issues of modern times, the Scientific Method is being sacrificed on the altar of Climate Astrology.

The Scientific Method is simple and straightforward. If you formulate a hypothesis, make predictions according to that hypothesis, and then identify facts or results that would objectively disprove the hypothesis, you are practicing science. If you leave out any of these steps, and most importantly if you leave out the final step, you are not practicing science.

To qualify as science, the scientist who formulates a hypothesis must as rigorously as possible test the hypothesis. Moreover, he or she must welcome and encourage other scientists to rigorously test the hypothesis as well. If the hypothesis fails, this is not a discredit to the scientist who formed the hypothesis. To the contrary, scientific knowledge advances because scientists are able to narrow the list of potential hypotheses that may be true.

The Scientific Method was in full display last week when the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing published the results of an important study conducted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. With access to NASA satellite data measuring the amount of heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere into space, Spencer compared the NASA satellite data to the amount of heat loss predicted by computer models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of IPCC’s assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Spencer found that the NASA satellite data reveal more heat is escaping into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.

Spencer’s discovery confirms prior heat-loss data reported by another set of NASA satellite instruments. Together, the NASA satellite instruments provide a 25-year record of real-world atmospheric conditions contradicting IPCC computer model predictions.

According to the Scientific Method, when real-world facts contradict a postulated hypothesis, the hypothesis fails. In this case, the failure of IPCC computer models to accurately predict atmospheric heat loss provided strong evidence that the IPCC computer models are based on faulty assumptions.

Rather than celebrating the advancement of knowledge provided by the NASA data and Spencer’s study, government employee “scientists” with a dog in the global warming fight viciously attacked Spencer and chastised the media for reporting this important scientific discovery.

Gavin Schmidt, a vigorous champion of the IPCC computer models and a government employee at NASA’s Goddard Institute (in a different branch of NASA than Spencer), protested the attention given to the NASA data by telling the press, “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data.”

This is a truly remarkable statement. Schmidt would have us believe that when 25 years of objective NASA satellite data contradict IPCC computer model predictions, we are supposed to ignore the real-world data and believe the discredited computer models instead. What are we supposed to do, pretend that the laws of physics have gone on a 25-year vacation?

Schmidt’s comments to the press are illustrative of a person whose taxpayer-funded paycheck is dependent upon the continuation of a failed global warming hypothesis. So long as the federal government operates under the assumption that we must study and address dangerous global warming, Schmidt’s job is secure. On the other hand, when scientists like Dr. Spencer report objective facts that falsify key components of global warming predictions, Schmidt’s government-provided paycheck is jeopardized and Schmidt lashes out.

Schmidt’s attempted denial of the NASA satellite facts is merely another example of global warming activists promoting faith-based principles and circular logic in contradiction of the Scientific Method.

When it rains a lot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When it doesn’t rain a lot, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are hot, we are told this proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. When temperatures are cold, we are told this, too, proves humans are creating a global warming crisis. In short, global warming activists have presented a theory for which they identify no set of facts or circumstances that could possibly disprove their theory – not even 25 years of objective NASA satellite data that directly contradict what their computer models say should be happening.

The faith-based circular logic of Schmidt and other global warming activists may be a lot of things, but it is not science. Some have described it as religion, but that is doing a disservice to religion. Religion dictates that when a self-professed prophet’s predictions fail to come true, that person is identified as a false prophet.

A more accurate description of the factual denial practiced by Schmidt regarding the NASA satellite data is Climate Astrology. Astrologers, after all, make all sorts of vague predictions such that anything that later occurs can be alleged to have been predicted in advance. “This could be the moment to take a relationship one stage further” is to National Enquirer astrology what “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is to Climate Astrology. Ironically, Kevin Trenberth, the same government employee “scientist” who said “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming” is the same government employee who lashed out against the Spencer-reported NASA satellite data by telling the press, “I cannot believe it got published.”

Jeane Dixon famously spent decades making astrology predictions in the pages of the National Enquirer. Many of Dixon’s astrological predictions were so vague that they could not be disproven.

For the astrology predictions that could be objectively compared to real-world events, most were proven false. Roy Spencer’s study of NASA satellite data was deservingly published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. Look for Schmidt and Trenberth’s Climate Astrology to soon appear in the pages of National Enquirer.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Experts Release ET Invasion Scenarios
Updated: Thursday, 18 Aug 2011, 4:03 PM CDT
Published : Thursday, 18 Aug 2011, 4:03 PM CDT

(NewsCore) - We've all heard of the ravaged rain forests and the plight of the polar bear. But as far as reasons for saving the planet go, the one offered by scientists Thursday is truly out of this world.

A team of American researchers have produced a range of scenarios in which aliens could attack the earth, and curiously, one revolves around climate change.

They speculate that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting ways that they view us as a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy us.

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

It divides projected close encounters into "neutral," those that cause mankind "unintentional harm" and, more worryingly, those in which aliens do us "intentional harm."

"ETI could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet," it warns.

One such scenario is the stuff of many a Hollywood blockbuster, a "standard fight-to-win conflict: a war of the worlds." But another might resonate more with fans of Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient truth."

It speculates that aliens, worried we might inflict the damage done to our own planet on others, might "seek to preemptively destroy our civilization in order to protect other civilizations from us."

"Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas
emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth," the study says.

"While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our expansive tendencies."

But before we brace ourselves for alien annihilation, the report suggests things could turn in humanity's favor.

"As we continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future, perhaps our thinking about the different modes of contact will help human civilization to avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival," it suggests.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Wonder how much these guys got paid for thinking this up. One of the many occasions that makes me glad I'm not an American tax payer.  Rofl
(08-19-2011, 09:29 AM)Bigfoot73 link Wrote:Wonder how much these guys got paid for thinking this up. One of the many occasions that makes me glad I'm not an American tax payer.  Rofl
Yea, I already commented elsewhere that I dont even need to read it to know its practically fiction.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
[Image: gort.jpg]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
(08-19-2011, 02:28 PM)Wook link Wrote:[Image: gort.jpg]
Hey, Gort only responded to violence.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Then Gort has had a lot of targets
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

By Bonnie Malkin, Sydney
7:00PM BST 27 Aug 2011
In one corner are the country's straight-talking miners, farmers and truck drivers, backed by macho opposition leader Tony Abbott, who fear the traditional Australian way of life is under threat.

In the other are the metropolitan "greenies", epitomised by Oscar-winning actress Cate Blanchett, and the country's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, who claim they are just trying to save the planet.

The issue at stake is the nation's first carbon tax, a $23 (£15) levy on each tonne of carbon produced by the country's 500 worst polluters, which Ms Gillard's minority Labor government intends to push through parliament next month.

Due to be up and running by July 2012, it is the most ambitious policy of its kind outside Europe.

The proposed tax, however has galvanised an alliance of blue collar workers, conservatives and talk-show radio hosts – a constituency closely identified with Ozzie "blokedom" – into staging a series of noisy protests that they hope will sink the tax, and the government.

At its helm is Mr Abbott, who famously once declared, with the forthrightness typical of the Australian male, that climate change was "absolute crap".

"I can go to a rugby league match and the only comment I get is that they don't want the tax to happen," added Barnaby Joyce, an Australian senator who opposes the tax.

"It's a policy straight from the Magic Monkey café of inner-city nirvana-ville, where people ponder the benevolence of how a government can and should affect everything in our lives, including the climate."

The No Carbon Tax collective, as they have styled themselves, claim the levy will result in sweeping job losses in the heavy industries that form the backbone of Australia's economy, and raise the cost of food and petrol. Their stance is backed by some business leaders and the powerful mining companies, whose billionaire owners fear their mega-profits will be hit by the new levy.

But in the more rarefied world of Australia's science labs, universities and left-leaning inner city suburbs, a tax on carbon is considered the first, essential step, on the path to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the planet, and thanks to its relance on coal-fired power, its citizens are the highest per capita emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. The country has recently suffered deadly floods and bush fires attributed to rising global temperatures.

The "Say Yes" to carbon tax campaign has attracted authors, intellectuals and celebrities, including Cate Blanchett, the actress-turned environmentalist who is so dedicated to the cause that she has reportedly clad her own multi-million dollar Sydney home in solar panels.

But in a sign of the ferociousness of the debate, Blanchett – who previously could do no wrong in the eyes of the Australian public – has been vilified by conservative commentators for supporting the campaign. She was labelled "Carbon Cate", a morally vain, moneyed hypocrite who knew nothing of the ways of "ordinary Australians".

Insults have also flown the other way, with government MPs regularly calling anyone who disagrees with the tax "climate change deniers".

By far the greatest vitriol, however, has been reserved for Welsh-born Ms Gillard, who has been called everything from a "bitch" and a "frump" to a liar, traitor, communist and fascist.

The scale of the abuse, though, is not down to the Australian male psyche chafing at having a woman in charge of the country.

Much of it stems from the fact that she rode back on a key pre-election promise made last August that there would, in fact, be no carbon tax whatsoever.

Following that month's elections, which returned a hung parliament, she was forced to cut a deal with the Greens Party to form a minority government. Although Ms Gillard has never confirmed it, it is widely believed that the deal included the introduction of a carbon tax, as six months later, she astonished the nation when she announced that she was suddenly "dedicated to a putting a price on carbon".

It was a backflip of such speed and clumsiness that many found it difficult to swallow – hence the birth of the No Carbon tax movement.

Earlier this month, some 4,000 angry protesters held a rally outside Parliament House in Canberra, a protest designed to remind voters of Ms Gillard's pre-election promise a year ago.

"It's all right for people in the city to say that we've got to have the carbon tax to save the planet," said Troy "Grover" Logan, an unemployed truck driver who walked 220 miles to Canberra in protest over the tax. "But they don't understand that this tax the biggest threat to industry."

Despite the divisions – and, some argue, misogyny – that it has highlighted in Australian society, Ms Gillard has now staked her credibility on bringing the carbon tax into law.

When her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, dropped his planned carbon emissions trading scheme after failing to get it through parliament, it too spelt the beginning of the end of his leadership
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Environmental Advocates Use Racism to Dismiss Global Warming Skeptics

Reduced to desperate measures, proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have resorted to formally identifying those who are skeptical of the global warming science as conservative white males. 

One inherent shortfall of the study is that it inadvertently celebrates the intelligence of conservative white males and denigrates every other race, gender and political background (including my own). 

Recently, mainstream media began the slow, tacit admission that global warming hasn't manifested in the way it was so definitively predicted 10 years ago.  This admission was presented last month through a recent study suggesting that Çhina's sulfur emissions were to blame for the lack of global warming.  Blaming China wasn't enough, so scientists scrambled to present the following two additional excuses for the foiled predictions of the past 10 years:

Volcanoes Now Blamed for Lack of Global Warming

Aerosols Blamed for Lack of Global Warming

Ironically, the aerosols article also blames the burning of fossil fuels for offsetting the effect of global warming.  Fossil fuels were initially blamed for global warming.

To understand how a group pushing human induced climate change could be reduced to conducting such a bizarre survey involving the socio-economic class of those who question the science of AGW, one has to look at the way they handle adverse information.

On a local level, anyone can make this discovery for themselves.  For example, If you have a group of environmentalists in your area that refer to global warming as one of the reasons for great ideas like localization, cleaning up the eco-sphere or reducing automobile exhaust, introduce some of the contradictory information involving climate change and see how they react to you. Pay close attention to the way they try to dismiss you or shape the argument away from what you present in support of recent conventional climate research. See if they actually answer your questions or address the specific points you present. Turning over this rock may involve an ugly discovery underneath.

An article describing this study indicates a comparison between conservative white males and the rest of the population.  Race, gender and political affiliation aside, the survey comes up with 39% "denying there's a scientific consensus".  White male conservatives boast a portion that is as high as 59%.  Not only does the scientific consensus of global warming have nothing to do with the science of global warming, the AGW movement is notorious for suppressing skeptical scientists.  The question should be, "Who is aware of the skeptical scientists being suppressed?"

The AGW climate scientists' tendency to suppress alternate views was revealed earlier through the hacked emails of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).  Suppression was one red flag in addition to suggestions for "hiding the decline" of global temperatures and refusing requests to see the original data. 

Since this incident occurred in November of 2009, East Anglia's CRU hired a PR firm to help with their public image after the email scandal.  This is an unusual move by a research department because the science is expected to hold up to public scrutiny on its own.

In what is commonly called the "third party technique" among PR professionals, panels were put together on three occasions to examine the hacked emails.  The idea was to reassure the public that the inquiry was indeed independent and trustworthy.  All three "blue ribbon panels" exonerated East Anglia's CRU by downplaying the erroneous activity and declaring that none of the relevant data was affected.  Unfortunately for East Anglia, it appears that their PR department had a hand in this process.

Common sense would have the AGW movement take its blows, distance itself from the scientists involved with East Anglia, and allow newer cleaner research to emerge.  Instead, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seemed hell bent on protecting the research called into question with the hacked emails. 

For some reason, the AGW movement thought that the best tactics were to further corrupt the peer review process, 'conspiracy bait' those who question the severity of CO2's warming effects and chime together with the mantra of "scientific consensus".  In the short run, this strategy seemed to work, especially when the establishment joins in with the motivation of another market bubble - carbon derivative scams.  Banks love human-driven climate change.  Anthropogenic global warming enjoys the privilege of mainstream acceptance.  When contradictory information slips by, the story is typically interspersed with statements reaffirming "the reality of anthropogenic global warming".  Sometimes, the information is revealed in such a vague manner, one begins to wonder what the initial purpose of the story was supposed to be. 

But the recent avalanche of contradictory information and discrediting scandals seem to be overwhelming the self aggrandizing orthodoxy that is AGW.

As stated earlier, the scramble to find a culprit to blame for the lack of a significant warming trend appears desperate.  Blame China, blame volcanoes, blame aerosols, blame fossil fuels.  Worse, it appears that the AGW movement overstepped the bounds of good PR by becoming directly involved with censorship at the BBC.

In addition, Outside Organization, the PR firm hired by East Anglia's CRU is directly involved with Ruppert Murdoch's email hacking scandal, which involved the arrest of Outside Organization's managing director, Neil Wallis.

Some of the effects of the PR have real consequences.  Recently, the Interior Department was hoodwinked into listing polar bears under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.  This was the direct result of studies and observations by a wildlife biologist named Charles Monnett, who has been placed on administrative leave and is currently being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of claims of drowning polar bears.

Contradictory information seems to be appearing more frequently and are less likely to fit the description of "propaganda from shills for the oil industry".  Here are a few recent examples:

Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study That Links Climate Change To Cosmic Rays

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

New paper: Urban Heat Island effect accounts for 56% of warming in urban areas over past 55 years

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts (Update)

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees

Rural Temperatures Around Washington DC In Steep Decline

Arctic 'tipping point' may not be reached

The tendency of the AGW crowd is to dismiss these articles (sources included) as propaganda on behalf of the "status quo" or the "oil industry".  Apparently, they are also making the assumption that only white male conservatives take these articles seriously. 

Why the refusal to address public scrutiny or encourage peer review of contradictory studies?  How could the level of willful ignorance within the AGW crowd be reduced to using racism in an attempt to discredit those who question the science?

It seems to be about a race of another kind.  The disdain for scientific discourse seems to be about a race to implement policies to reduce CO2 emissions.  Remember how we keep hearing the absurd statement that the "debate is over" on anthropogenic global warming?  Scientists confident in their work should always welcome scrutiny but, in this case, chastise those for refusing to hang their hat on AGW conclusions regardless of the contradictory data.

While the AGW crowd has acknowledged to some extent the difference between actual temperatures in the last 10 years and those temperatures predicted 10 years ago, there is still this McCarthy-esque ridicule for those who question the validity of anthropogenic global warming.  Why?

Perhaps they know that the earth is cooling and they realize that they had better implement their proposed CO2 curbing policies if they are to make any claim of saving the earth.

How does CO2 influence climate change? What level is influenced by human activity?

Wouldn't we like to know. Unfortunately, not much will come from a bunch of folks beating their chests and definitively assuring us that AGW is not something that needs to be questioned.

J.T. Waldron
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled
Comments Email Twitter inShare.12.Lawrence Solomon  Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.

Financial Post

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

First of two parts. Next week: The end of the global warming debate.

To see the striking graph that the journal Nature withheld from its print edition, click here.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

By IBTimes Staff Reporter | September 1, 2011 1:31 AM EDT

Global warming and climate change are phenomena that broke the bonds of scientific circles to emerge as a matter of debate between "believers" and "skeptics." Countless studies validating and denying global warming have seen the light of the day, providing fodder for more, often somewhat bitter debates. Within the past month, Nobel Prize winner and leading climate change "alarmist" Al Gore has called those who deny global warming akin to "racists," and "pseudo-scientists," and accused media of manipulating evidence about global warming.

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere.  In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.

Theories which said that sun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996, by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK.

Within a day, chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible."

Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming, welcomed the new results, saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group.

"CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a "significant" one according to CERN,"  David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said.

CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."

Follow us on LinkedIn  LinkedIn

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Climate sceptics called every name in the book
Brendan O'Neill
From: The Australian September 03, 2011 12:00AM

HAS any intellectual current ever been so disparaged and demonised, so ferociously harangued by the chattering classes, as climate-change scepticism?
Every slur in the book has been hurled at those who dare to question climate-change orthodoxies.

They've been compared to Holocaust deniers. They've been branded psychologically disordered. They only use their "reptilian brain", says one eco-author, which means their outlook on climate change is not "modulated by logic, reason or reflective thought", Al Gore says.

And now, putting the icing on this cake of abuse, Gore has compared climate-change sceptics to racists.

In a recent interview he likened his present globetrotting war against climate change with his involvement in the American civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Just as he and his buddies used to challenge racist chatter by saying to people, "Why do you talk that way? Don't talk that way around me", he says green-leaning folk must now do the same when they encounter nasty low-lifes who question climate change.

When his interviewer asked if there were any differences between being racist and doubting climate change, Gore said perhaps there were, but "they are the same where the moral component is concerned".

So there you have it: questioning climate change is the moral equivalent of being racist. Doubting the science of climate change or its many political spin-offs, from the idea that man should live more meekly to the demand for an end to development, is akin to hating a group of people on the basis of their skin colour.

And therefore it is incumbent on greens not to engage these science-denying, Klan-like toe-rags in actual debate but simply to say to them: "Don't talk that way around me."

That is, these backward people must be publicly upbraided at every opportunity, their words treated as wicked things that no decent person should have to listen to and be sullied by.

In Gore's lumping together of climate-change sceptics with racists, we can see what lies behind the liberal elite's shrieking intolerance of anyone who doesn't buy into the eco-outlook: a desire to depict their critics as morally warped.

The green movement is not content with arguing that its opponents are wrong. It wants to brand them as twisted, sinister and pernicious, spouting words that actually harm other people and society itself. In their determination to denude climate-change scepticism of any decency, greens ape every arch censor throughout history, from Torquemada to Joseph McCarthy, who likewise depicted certain people's ideas as a mortal threat to the social fabric.

The most striking thing about Gore's equation of dissent from climate-change orthodoxy with racism is the way it allows him to argue that such dissent should have no place in everyday social interaction.

He wants to make climate-change scepticism as disgusting as saying the N-word; he wants to deny the oxygen of respectability to an intellectual current he disagrees with.

So he calls on greens to "change the national conversation" by taking a tip from old civil rights activists: whenever you meet someone proffering climate sceptical ideas, you should immediately say, "Don't talk that way around me."

He's effectively calling for the subtle expulsion of climate sceptics from polite society, from the dinner-party circuit, from the media, so that nobody is forced to endure their apparently hateful ideas.

Gore isn't the first person to compare climate-change scepticism with racism.

Earlier this year John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser, said that just as we are "grossly intolerant of racism", so we should also be "grossly intolerance of pseudoscience", including the alleged pseudoscience of climate-change scepticism.

In demanding "gross intolerance" of certain forms of scientific thinking, Beddington explicitly reveals the end result of comparing climate-change sceptics with racists: it allows you to argue that their ideas should not be tolerated in decent society.

Just as any of us would get angry if we heard someone making racist gibes and would feel inclined to tell them to "shut the hell up", apparently we should do the same with climate-change sceptics. Don't engage with them, don't debate them; just say, "Don't talk that way around me."

Others use the stigmatised category of Holocaust denial to try to rubbish climate-change sceptics. The insult "climate-change denier" is intended to lump eco-doubters together with the likes of British historian David Irving, who argues there was no Holocaust against the Jews.

As Margo Kingston argued following Irving's arrest in Austria on charges of Holocaust denial: "Perhaps there is a case for making climate-change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all."

The idea that climate scepticism is not only immoral but potentially criminal is gaining ground. British green Mark Lynas has fantasised about "future international criminal courts" handing down sentences to "those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths"; that is, climate-change sceptics. "I put [their words] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial."

As with Gore's cynical attempt to marshal the moral fury we feel towards racism in his war against scepticism, comparing sceptics with Holocaust deniers is intended to delegitimate them, to rob them of respectability.

As Charles Jones, an English professor at the University of Edinburgh, says, it's an attempt to assign them with "the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial".

When the green morality police are not branding sceptics morally repugnant, they are labelling them mentally ill. More and more greens are writing about the "psychology of climate-change denial".

According to eco-scribe John Naish, the problem is that people are using the "wrong brain": they too often think with their "reptilian brain, which is responsible for arousal, basic life functions and sex", rather than with their "neocortex".

What we are witnessing is an attempt to pathologise dissent, to depict dissent not as a legitimate intellectual endeavour but as a kind of mental disorder or a creed as immoral as racism.

In their pathologisation, demoralisation and even criminalisation of dissent, greens unwittingly expose their deeply censorious, inquisitorial instincts.

Environmentalists often claim they aren't censors. They point out that they never bang on the doors of Big Government to demand that it pass laws forbidding the questioning of climate-change orthodoxy.

No, they do something worse than that.

They relentlessly depict climate scepticism as morally repugnant to encourage decent people to be "grossly intolerant" of it.

They invite each and every one of us to transform ourselves into everyday censors who should never debate with sceptics but simply say to them: "Don't talk that way around me."
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide

Science professor, a former global warming believer now denier, publishes groundbreaking paper to prove carbon dioxide cools, not warms, our atmosphere.
Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”

Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”

Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years.

Global Warming Scare is “Anti-science”
In an astonishing personal U-turn Nahle has taken on the task of demonstrating that the demonization of CO2 was premised on a faulty hypothesis. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson. Anderson is one of eight coauthors of the controversial book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ that also falsifies the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Nasif says, “Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture.”

Nasif says, “To my surprise, I found that the hypothesis was flawed and that the AGW proponents were inventing variables and constants. As I starting to apply the correct data and doink-head, I was realizing that the whole hypothesis was wrong from the physics standpoint."

Read This Next
Greenhouse Gases and Their Effects on Global Warming 'New Scientist' does About Turn on Global Warming New International Climate Science Coalition Hits First Landmark The 60-year-old’s career is now firmly focused on climate-related research; in 2010 he began working on Climate Change and Biodiversity at the Superior School of Biology, University Juarez of the State of Durango. Nahle is so converted in his thinking that he now calls the greenhouse gas theory, ”antiscience" and "pseudoscience.”

Other science specialists in the fields of atmospheric physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology as well as mathematicians, have also been looking with a critical eye at the controversies in climate science and publishing papers going against the views of establishment climatology, a science largely comprised of generalists not specialist scientists, according to Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball. Ball concurs with such skeptic criticisms adding that it "raises questions about who is qualified to provide oversight."

As scepticism about global warming increases I asked Nasif why it has taken so long for more independent scientists to speak out. He replied, “In my experience, other scientists follow the mainstream about the greenhouse effect (GHE) without examining its basis. If they would examine the issue in more depth like I did, they would realize that it is not true; the GHE just doesn't exist.”

Carbon Dioxide Shown to Have no Potential to Trap Heat
Professor Nahle’s paper addresses very technical matters such as “emissivity” and “overlapping absorption bands” within atmospheric gases which many scientists, as well as non-scientists, have little real understanding. So I asked Nasif to give an explanation.

“Emissivity is a coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energy. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs.”

Nasif’s study looked at how well gases in our atmosphere convert energy from the sun to raise temperatures on the ground. He went on, “In the case of carbon dioxide, its emissivity consists of its potential to emit the energy absorbed because it is not a primary source of heat.”

Nasif added, “the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide is equal to its emissivity coefficient, the gas can only absorb a limited amount of the energy received from other sources and then emit a limited amount of the energy absorbed.” In simple terms this means carbon dioxide cannot ‘store’ more energy than it emits.

Poor Climate Calculations Overestimated Warming Effect
This new study, in effect, refutes the claims of climate researchers who say such an overlapping trapping effect ‘enhances’ the emissivity of the carbon dioxide and/or the water vapor in the air (clouds, etc.).

Such energy received is then swiftly lost to where it goes most easily i.e. to the colder regions of the upper atmosphere and then to outer space. This means heat does not get ‘trapped’ in the absorption bands of the gases and the atmosphere cannot thereby act as a ‘blanket’ to keep the earth’s surface warm.

In fact, in total contradiction of global warming orthodoxy, Nahle’s research demonstrates that, under these conditions, a negative emissivity occurs; a self absorption that must be subtracted from the addition of total emissivities of the two, three, four, or more gases. Thus the only effect CO2 can have on global climate is to reduce temperatures, not increase them.

•Professor Nasif Nahle ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’, Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico, online (April 10, 2011)

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Nobel Laureate Resigns From Society Because Of Its Global Warming Fear-Mongering
"Health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period," Nobel prize winner says

By Marc Morano
September 14, 2011

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.  Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Climate change targets 'will add £500 to family's fuel bill within four years'
By Jason Groves

Last updated at 12:09 AM on 15th September 2011
Comments (87)
Add to My Stories

Added pressure: Government climate change targets will put £500 on the average family's fuel bill within four years, a study warns today (picture posed by models)

Government climate change targets will put £500 on the average family's fuel bill within four years, a study warns today.

The report warns that the political elite's obsession with renewable energy will damage Britain's competitiveness without necessarily doing anything to tackle climate change.

It suggests that the Coalition's drive to cut greenhouse gases will add £10billion to fuel bills by 2015 - equal to almost £500 per household.

Dr Richard Wellings, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, says: ‘It is clear the Government’s current plans will impose severe burdens on both  business and households yet will fail to make a significant difference to the climate.’

He accuses senior politicians on all sides of seizing on the green agenda despite the ‘high level of scientific uncertainty that still surrounds the issue of climate change’.

Dr Wellings cites official figures  suggesting that building thousands of wind turbines and connecting them to the National Grid is set to cost £100billion over the next decade.

There is a ‘significant risk’ that the final bill will be higher still, he says in an essay that is included in a new book on centre-Right thinking, The Future of Conservatism, which was featured in the Daily Mail on Monday.

It suggests that the Government’s target of cutting carbon emissions by at least a third by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, is motivated more by ideology than rational thinking.

Warning: The report says that the political elite's obsession with renewable energy will damage Britain's competitiveness without necessarily doing anything to tackle climate change

David Cameron has pledged to make the Coalition the ‘greenest government ever’.

The study warns that the ‘monumental scale’ of the investment needed to switch Britain’s energy generation will ‘crowd out’ business investment in other areas.

It suggests there is a risk of ‘carbon leakage’ where energy intensive industries quit Britain and move to developing countries – taking jobs away from the UK without cutting carbon emissions.

‘What is the point of Britain sacrificing her economic recovery on the altar of climate change when, according to some estimates, China is opening two coal power plants every week?’ the report asks

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

SOLARGATE: Obama’s Big Green Scandal That Won’t Go Away
By 21st Century Wire
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
September 16, 2011

In the first year of his presidency, George W. Bush was under siege. At that time, he had appeared to win his war in Afghanistan, only to find himself tangled in another story, a tale of corporate greed and political corruption made by the hands of a company known as Enron.

Back then, it was the new energy brokerage houses and the new energy futures market that drove the hubris, and the greed of men like Ken Lay. Today in 2011, Barrack Obama now finds himself in the midst of his own ‘Enron moment’, but this time it’s political favouritism and a seemingly bottomless pit of green government stimulus handouts that has driven his green juggernaut into a ravine.

The Enron scandal saw, among other crimes, the savings and retirement funds of tens of thousands of employees disappear when the politically connected energy giant went bankrupt overnight, but it was the cronyism- the company’s direct connections to Bush, Cheney and other insiders which left the worst taste in America’s mouth. Last week, deja vu hit the Obama White House, as his favourite green pet- solar energy firm Solyndra, managed to do an overnight disappearing act with over $500 million in taxpayer funds. What’s worse is that just like Enron, the solar energy firm’s connections go right up through Washington, and right up to the President himself.

From a policy level, it’s a complete wash out due to the fact that despite over half a billion dollars in Federal Financing Bank handouts, Solyndra did not manage to create any new ‘green jobs’. On an insider corruption level, things are looking even bleaker.

Indeed, in the Obama White House, just as it was in the Bush White House, money buys influence, and more importantly, money also buys business opportunities. Apparently, when Solyndra first applied for its green subsidies, auditors at the Department of Energy (DOE) had serious doubts about the company’s financial strength, yet, they were still fast-tracked for one the biggest green subsidies in US history. Jonathan Silver is executive director of the Loan Programs Office, and is the man who signed off on Solyndra’s loan. Will he thrown under the bus later, if the investigation reaches Congressional hearings? The plot thickens.

The $500 million question is why this firm was allowed to win such a large handout if its fundamentals did not pass grade? The answer to that question is a man by the name of George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire and a major investor in Solyndra, who also happened to be… a key fundraiser for Obama’s 2008 election campaign. But it gets worse.

When Solyndra when down under Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week, you would think that the US taxpayer would be first in line as a creditor who hoped to recoup its $500 million loss. Not so. First in line was… George Kaiser, who managed to pocket his initial $75 million investment before anyone else got to the butchers table.

In an ABC report, Kaiser, like with every inner circle Obama Democrat, moved quickly to place the blame on our far eastern neighbours.“Solyndra’s collapse saying the solar firm faced “serious challenges in the marketplace, especially the drastic decline in solar panel prices during the past two years caused in part by subsidies provided by the government of China to Chinese solar panel manufacturers”, said Kaiser.

Now there is an ethical and perhaps criminal element to Obama’s green scandal. Like with Enron, where thousands of employee retirement accounts were pilfered away by its cowboy executives, Solyndra’s employees were informed literally overnight, that their company was closed and was so broke, that there would not even be a severance cheque waiting for them. But it turns out that insiders in Washington did know the company was in trouble long before it closed its doors last week. The question now is who knew. Which Washington insiders had off-loaded their stocks and shares in the months before the solar manufacturer went down the drain?

Criminal proceeding will certainly follow should investigative authorities come up with any information pointing to gross insider trading and financial malfeasance. At the orders of the DOE’s Inspector General, the FBI have now already raided the offices of Solyndra, seizing all its files, as well as raided the homes of Solyndra executives, seizing their computers and related company documents.

The reality of Obama’s green revolution in 2011 is that, despite his pledge to handout $38.6 billion in Federal loan guarantees to companies like Solyndra, a promise to create 65,000 “green” jobs has only produced a rather pathetic 3,545 permanent jobs- this after giving out almost half the allocated amount so far, according to the DOE.

One only needs to do the math, and you will discover what every other developed country around the globe already knew in 2008- that the cost per green job is hardly worth the financial pain and suffering.

Unquestionably, this scandal will throw into question every other ‘green jobs’ award that Obama’s White House has given out since 2008, as well as severely damage confidence in any other DOE projects on the table, or in the future.

Now, it is perhaps only a question of time before the investigation reaches the Congress hearing level, where Democrats will be hoping to push a major investigation past the election next November 2012. In the meantime, GOP opponents on Capitol Hill have already caught the scent of political blood left by Obama’s big green debacle. In a recent Washington Post article, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) exclaimed, “My goodness. We should be reviewing every one of these loan guarantee”. Audit baby audit.

Early indications imply that the sheer size and scope of Obama’s “Solargate” scandal leave us with the impression that this may only be the tip of a much, much larger iceberg. It will be Obama’s first classic Pennsylvania Avenue scandal he has had to face in his first term, one in which we will discover the true quality of this President’s tephlon coating.

Above all, this scandal underlines the very same issues which were present during, and which grew out of the Enron days, because Obama’s “green economy” rides squarely on the back of some very questionable “science” which endorses a belief in Al Gore’s universal theory of man-made global warming and climate change. From this idea also sprung a vision whereby the people of the world would one day be buying and selling their carbon emissions in a carbon marketplace, a market designed by Ken Lay himself. It seems that with Solargate, the house of cards is well and truly coming down.

With Enron it, was pure hubris and greed, combined with opportunity. With Solyndra, it is green hubris and green greed, combined with opportunity. When you get right down to it, they are no different.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)