Yesterday the Danish Parliament in Copenhagen passed a hotly disputed “anti-riot law”, less than two weeks before what is shaping up to be the largest single convergence around climate change ever. The law, passed to stymie public protest around the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen, strips people of civil liberties, freedoms, and sanctions (if not encourages) preemptive arrests for any of the 10,000’s of people expected to arrive in Copenhagen to voice concern, march, take direct action, and participate in the UN climate talks.

The new laws layout is fairly straightforward, and inevitably draws a comparison to unlawful US and UK preemptive arrest actions from the last year.

• Preventive arresting: Under the new law, police can detail people for up to 12 hours without any charges, just because they decide you look like a troublemaker.

• Hindrance of authorities performing their duties: Normally the penalty is a fine. Now, they can hold you for 40 days.

• Breach of the peace, or disorderly behavior while staying around after the police have broken up a demo: They have more than quadrupled fines for staying in a demo that the police have broken up is 403 euro and up to 671 euro if you are showing disorderly behavior.

Additionally (yes there’s more), Danish police said “open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public order”.

Another essential information if you are attending the COP15 meetings, KlimaForum09, joining a bike bloc, or just hitting the streets, is that masks in any form are illegal at any demo or protest. This means you can be arrested on your way to a protest or meeting for having a scarf in your pocket. This doesn’t mean that the police will be working with this mandate, but it does mean the law grants them the freedom to do so. All of these developments come on the heels of UK police coming under heavy scrutiny and now official investigation for aggressive tactics during this years G20 protests.

…And in other sustainability news, Copenhagen Police are taking their recycling program to another level by recycling the human cages used in last years G8 meetings in Copenhagen for the COP15 meeting. Way to go!…

Even if you are not planning on attending any marches, demonstrations, or other events, a lot can happen on your way home, so know your rights while here. Climate Justice Action, a huge coalition of justice groups, has put together a good legal briefing for those coming to Copenhagen.

The world is mobilizing as we realize that leaders such as US and China no longer have the political will or ambition to be climate leaders we need them to be. Reality is, they are towing the line of industry and inaction, and in doing so they are trading away future generations. The world is expecting a remarkable showing of people power in Copenhagen, from powerful speeches in plenary sessions, to impactful actions in the streets. We realize that no moment like Copenhagen may happen again and we must take hold of this moment.

If we do not define this moment, it will be defined for us.

By Clare Boston

Forecasts for the 2009 hurricane season were wide ranging earlier this year, from an active season to a near-normal or below average one.  In reality, 2009 remained much quieter than in a number of recent years, getting off to the slowest start for 17 .  This has been down to a number of factors, but is most likely due to El Niño, which warms surface waters and slows the wind shear required to generate tropical storms.

This quiet  season has caused many people to question the link between hurricane intensity and climate change.  However, events of one particular year, or even a number of years, may not be representative of a more long term trend and therefore cannot be used as evidence for global warming or cooling.

Marshall Shepherd and Thomas Knutson discuss the debate on the linkage between global warming and hurricane activity in an article in Geography Compass.  Research has focussed on the roles of anthropogenic forcing and natural variability in the recent increasing trend in hurricane intensity.  The article highlights the need for significantly more observations, such as sea surface temperatures and vertical wind shear, alongside more modelling of the role of these factors, before the links between global warming and hurricanes can be fully understood.

Read the National Geographic article

Read the article in Metro International

National Hurricane Center website

Read Shepherd and Knutsen (2007). The current debate on the linkage between global warming and hurricanes. Geography Compass.

Wen Jiabao

Il  governo cinese ha annunciato un taglio, entril 2020, della Co2 prodotta del 40-45% . Se così fosse sarebbe una novità decisiva per le sorti della Conferenza Onu e della salute del pianeta. In realtà, il dato di riduzione va inteso rispetto ai livelli di gas serra emessi nel 2005 e che la riduzione riguarderà un altro parametro: l’intensità carbonica. Un’unità di misura inventata da Pechino tesa ad agganciare il taglio dei gas serra alla crescita economica. L’intensità carbonica calcola la quantità di Co2 prodotta per ogni unità di prodotto interno lordo. La riduzione, dunque, aumenta o cala seguendo l’andamento dell’economia. Non si tratta quindi di un taglio inderogabile. Non essendo prevedibile l’andamento del Pil nei prossimi anni, anche le riduzioni quindi sono ipotettiche.

Resta il valore dell’annuncio. Che costringe le gli altri paesi inquinatori a scoprire le loro carte. Anche se, va detto, che la decisione cinese apre le porte, per le potenze emergenti, a un taglio “fai da te” delle emissioni climalteranti.

Dopo Washington ora anche Pechino mette sul piatto impegni e dati. E il vertice Onu di Copenhagen sembra cambiare profilo. Oltre a Obama, nella capitale danese ci sarà il premier cines Wen Jiabao, che alla Conferenza sul clima non sarà più nella scomoda posizione di imputato. Ora, anche la Cina sembra avviarsi, con lentezza però, verso la strada delle tecnologie verdi. Forse ha capito che avere la leadership ambientale equivale ad avere la leadership globale.

Everyday Survival by Laurence Gonzales has the interesting tagline – Why Smart People Do Stupid Things. Obviously, it’s the tagline that attracted me towards the book. I expected to find some wise, funny and witty insights into the subject matter, but I’ve quickly realized as I read through the book that  I was wrong in hoping so. The book had a totally different direction and far more depth than I originally conceived.

In trying to find answer to the question – “Why Smart People Do Stupid Things?” -, the author has explored many subjects including but not limited to evolution, physics, astronomy, psychology etc. Laurence even went on some adventures like going deep inside the supposedly infinite cave, traveling far to a place uninfluenced by the modern life etc.

The stupid things the author is interested to investigate resemble the following:

• People getting lost and be scared inside a state park, which is just 3/4th mile wide and a mile long
• The author himself mistaking a real rattlesnake for a rattlesnake-looking ashtray of his grandmother
• A pilot acting in a nervous and incorrect way to a seemingly usual issue during the flight thereby leading it to crash
• Tourists eager to watch the volcanic eruption utterly incapable of estimating or even conceiving the magnitude of the impact

The author explains how the behavioral scripts that we create guide our behavior in same or similar situations  and how they can make us fail to see the obvious anomalies. Also when we don’t have any scripts to follow in an entirely unexpected situation, we fail to act in any sensible manner which in some cases can lead to our doom . This can be clearly witnessed in the tsunami victims on the beach.  They have already ignored any warning signs of the nature, and as they watched the giant wave coming forward, they just stood there unable to realize its potential to destroy their lives. Nothing in their experience prepared them for such an event. There were no behavioral scripts to follow.

So, when modern people are faced with ancient hazards, they don’t know how to react. This is largely because we have dropped our guard and are in a ‘vacation state of mind’. With all the progress made by us, we have grown complacent and built up the illusion of safety net around us. We lost curiosity to know things around us.

The author goes as back as the origin of the universe and start of life in trying to understand our true nature. He makes it a point that ‘life’ itself is only a minor part of the overall grand system and the entire human race is like not more than just a fleeting second in the geological time. By pointing out how insignificant the human race is, despite being the most intelligent species on the earth,  to the grand system, the author urges us to be more humble and just play our part. If we act unwisely by upsetting the nature, as we are doing it right now, wiping us out is not a big deal for the system. Our earth has seen many extinctions so far. The author opines that Global Warming is really an important thing to think and act upon, if we wish our future generations to survive. Life will continue whatever may be the conditions, but the human race may not. The author also talks a lot about entropy and how this law governs all the events in the universe including the emergence of life.

The author’s argument for the cause of Global Warming really caught my attention and I kind of bought it. It has had a great effect upon me as it seemed to reverse my view on the issue until then. My earlier take on Global Warming that it’s largely a myth propagated by fund and fame seeking research organizations was shaped by Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. It might be silly to be influenced by fiction in such matters, but that novel seemed brilliant to me and I was awed by Michael’s arguments and conclusions.

Having discussed and explored lot many things, Laurence concludes his work by reiterating that by a habit of knowing – a craving to know – our world and ourselves and by the simple act of consciously paying attention, we can enrich our lives and can even cast a protective web around ourselves and our children.

Looking at the comments on an article about the Emissions Trading Scheme and if Climate Change is real, its littered with statements like this

You are aware that 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus that humans are causing global warming?
If you care to do the research, you’ll find that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely NONEXISTANT amongst the experts (ie climate scientists who have had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years on the subject of climate change).
Anyone who thinks there is not a consensus on this really should take the time to check the facts.
The challenge is how to effectively communicate this FACT to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists so we can get on with trying to fix this problem.
Your argument is like saying there is still a ‘debate’ about evolutionary theory. Do you also believe that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the world was created in 6 days by a supernatural being 6,000 years ago?

So, lets take Lizs (the name given on the comment) statements one at a time and look at how they actually stack up.

• You are aware that 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus that humans are causing global warming?

97%?  where did that come from Liz?  And since when was science a consensus?  I’m sure 97% of scientists believed the sun orbited the earth until one person showed they were wrong.   Media and communications allow opinions to become fact before proof – hell, George W Bush got into Office on just that basis.  Trouble is – there are a LOT of climate scientists, physicists, geologists etc who all agree also that the evidence shows climate change is happening but not linked to CO2, man made or otherwise.  Check your facts Liz – its not proven, settled or anything of the kind.

• If you care to do the research, you’ll find that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely NONEXISTANT amongst the experts (ie climate scientists who have had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years on the subject of climate change).

Ah yes, the famous peer review, which we know and thanks to the Hadley Climate Research Unit leaks last week, have proof,  is controlled and operated by the members that believe in AGW.  Its a closed loop – Warmists only review each other ’s data – open up the data to everyone and lets have a proper peer review shall we.  Then we’ll see.  I think you’ll find the so called experts have no more clue about the climate than the anyone else – even the IPCC themselves admit they don’t know how it works.  Computer models have all failed to predict any of the recent trends, there’s no mid atmosphere warming, ice sheet extents are normal, in fact cold records are being broken, temperatures are static not rising exponentially as the models told us.  Get next weeks weather for the whole planet right in a model, then we’ll talk.

• The challenge is how to effectively communicate this FACT to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists so we can get on with trying to fix this problem.

The problem is that we’re so sure we know what the problem is.   Well, its not CO2, even a casual glance at climate science data can tell you that.  What if its natural?  Governments cant control that, so thats all so easily glossed over.

• Your argument is like saying there is still a ‘debate’ about evolutionary theory. Do you also believe that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the world was created in 6 days by a supernatural being 6,000 years ago?

Erm, lets not be so sure we understand evolution  – the fossil record is very very spartan and even avid evolutionists will tell you they only have very small bits of evidence.  Evolution is a theory like any other and still open to challenge if someone has a better idea supported by fact.   I can’t imagine someone with genuine, independently verifiable data that disproves evolution being vilified in the same way as someone who shows a graph of light absorption of CO2 at different percentages, pointing out that its a logarithmic scale and increasing CO2 does very very little to influence temperature after 20-40ppm in the atmosphere.   Even doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere from 380 ppm today only adds a tiny fraction of a additional absorbtion and a fraction of a degree of warming.  Yet someone that says that today gets chased out of town with cries of Heretic!!

You’re right, Liz, there is no debate, CO2 and man made climate change is a religious belief, not science.

So – there, as you can see, brainwashing, zealous denial, plucked statistics (for fucks sakes, quote the source of the numbers people!) and religious fervour on the glaciers are melting and its our fault camp, vs transparent and open science and a willingness to debate from the no man made global warming camp.    And they have the cheek to compare it to evolution.

It completely blows my mind when I hear something said that is completely and utterly false.  I cannot believe it.  Where do people even hear such things?  Sure, we all probably believe certain things to be true that are in fact false, but would we be so confident as to use such points in an argument?  Apparently so.

A conversation today reminded me of one I have often had in the past in relation to climate change.  Now, I would not consider myself an expert in the field, but I would like to think I am at least educated.

I just don’t understand how people refuse to believe in global warming or have such an incorrect understanding of what it is.  When we get snow in Seattle I hear, “So much for global warming!” when it is in fact global warming that is causing the crazy weather.  It creates extremes, not just making everywhere warmer.  Then there are the lines that just boggle my mind like, “The Earth is actually getting cooler.”  Completely false by any measure.  Where do such lies come from?  And that is what they are, lies, at least told by the originators of the line.

And of course, I ask these questions knowing the answers.  They come from the uneducated, the misinformed, and the people whom the idea of global warming doesn’t jive.  We have been taught to believe these people instead of the “experts.”  Just think about it.  How many times have you been told not to believe the “so-called experts?”  We are being told to not believe the experts… the experts!  We are being told not to believe the WMO/UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international panel of scientists who have spent their lives researching this issue.  If we are not supposed to believe the experts, the people put in charge of understanding these things, then who are we supposed to believe?  Why even have such groups of people if we shouldn’t trust them?

Obviously, I’m not saying we should always believe what the people in charge say.  I’m not advocating for some type of lemming system.  I am just saying that there is a difference between believing what one person of authority is saying versus what years and years of research from thousands of different scientists are saying.  But because people are happy with their way of life, uneducated about the changes already present, and unable/unwilling to challenge other’s beliefs, nothing is going to change.  People will accept the doubt placed into their minds by others unwilling to change as well.

What does that mean? Everybody knows that scientific data should stand up to scrutiny, we are all too aware that studies can appear to support theories simply by manipulating the studies. I suppose if something was inarguably fact, then the entire scientific community would be in agreement and unable to dispute the facts. There have been many sceptics, along with many scientists that would not support the global warming and climate change theory. Unfortunately, we cannot depend on the experts for direction, we have to rely on our own common sense to decide if something makes sense or not.

Our government is powerful enough to own advisory or research groups, if they’re needing an agenda pushed forward, then the groups would figure out a way to sell it for job security. This is more than a conflict of interest that we are paying for…we are actually paying for our own misery with our tax dollars and appointing the public serpants servants that implement regulations on us while every one on the government payroll lives large and lines their pockets. When the Senior Operations Research Analyst for the EPA debunks the proposed research and exposes an obvious agenda, it also exposes the trouble we are in. Our recourse is for everyone to have a personal staff of lobbyists and heavily fund political candidates for more political weight, or we can call to action demanding reform and vet our candidates more thoroughly for future elections. Of course now that “Global Warming”, renamed “Climate Change” has negative connotations don’t be surprised if the initiative gets pushed through with a whole new name, isn’t your intelligence insulted? 

The 98 page report was co-authored by Alan Carlin – Senior Operations Research Analyst for the EPA since 1974 http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/ and John Davidson – Environmental Scientist for the EPA http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/ae920736ab481760852575a6006ab364/a39e1962df2d3cc0852575a7005e47ba!OpenDocument

And here’s the report  http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

To our friends in the USA – Happy Thanksgiving.

We all have many things to be very thankful for. 

Family, Health, Opportunity and of course an abundance of food.

Despite all of these wonderful blessings, I sometimes forget about the little connections that make all of the bigger things possible.

I’ve forgotten to call a friend on their birthday. 

More often than not, I forget to get in my 30 minutes on the treadmill

And as my wife is quick to point out I always seem to forget the organic vanilla yogurt – I write it down and every week at some point, I’ve got to hop back in the car to go get the organic vanilla yogurt.

My point isn’t to highlight my forgetful tendencies, but to point out that it’s those little things in and of themselves that make the bigger picture come into focus.

That birthday phone call is what shows my friends I care – this strengthens relationships.

30 minutes on the treadmill keeps my heart healthy, hopefully for many more years to come.

Organic Yogurt keeps my wife happy – which will also keep my heart healthy, hopefully for many more years to come.

Plant Your Tree is about each of us individually making the small connections to address the bigger picture. 

Protecting our planet is a task that no one person can solve. 

But each of us can make small changes to figuratively plant our own tree.  

Doing simple things like:

•  composting
• not idling your car 
• recycling
• choosing organic food products
• reducing household cleaning chemicals
• installing high-efficiency appliances. 

These are all baby steps we can all take that will make the bigger changes possible when our family joins in,

……and so do our neighbours,

……and also friends,

……and even our co-workers (yes, even your co-workers can be convinced to make smart choices with some guidance).

We just have to learn to make the connection between the little things and the big picture.

In his latest book,  The Incomparable Honeybee & the Economics of Pollination our friend Dr Reese Halter makes some connections that I don’t think most people (including myself) would ever make. 

Dr. Reese explores the startling decline in bee population and how this impacts our economy, our eco-system and even the food we put on our table.

Dr Reese recently did a very interesting interview on the CBC radio show The Current.  

The segment is just about 20 minutes long and I guarantee you’ll learn something in this interview that you never knew before.

http://sfapiculture.ca/2009/11/cbc-radios-the-current-on-honeybees/

Take a listen.  This short interview really opened my eyes to some important issues and reminded me that it really is the little things that makes life so sweet.

The Mainstream Media is ignoring the biggest scandal in scientific history! Global Warming (a.k.a. “Climate Change”) is a hoax, the “Green” Movement nothing but a fraud thrust upon an unwitting, well-meaning public in order to facilitate the redistribution of wealth!

This Is The Propaganda The Green Movement Wants You To Buy Into:

This Is The Truth (The Math Doesn’t Lie):

Here’s a video summary of the “smoking gun” evidence that so-called “global warming” is a hoax: “Unsettled Science?”

And yet, the media still ignores ClimateGate, the biggest scientific scandal of our time.

Pretending climate email leak isn’t crisis won’t make it go away…

Impression left is global warming game has been rigged from start…

AUSTRALIA: Five MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax…

ONWARD COPENHAGEN…

Gore: Time up for any short-term thinking…

The newly purged Liberal Party of Australia states the following self-evident scientific truths:

the earth is flat,

the evolution theory is a hoax,

Man made pollution does not contribute to a rise in greenhouse gases

Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with global warming

Creationism is real

Aids is gods way of punishing gays

Nuclear energy is safe

Uranium is harmless

Locking up refugee kids is good for them

Saying sorry was wrong wrong wrong

Invading Irak was right right right

Polar ice caps are melting because they want to

Muslim refugees are terrorists

Wilson Tuckey is a balanced individual

Burning brown coal is good for the environment

Deforestation is good for the environment

The greenies cause bushfires

feel free to add to the list

…but you better not kill the groove…

Australian politics and Climate Change and there’s blood everywhere.

They are trying to nut out an Emissions Trading Scheme before Copenhagen at the moment and it’s all gone a little bit pear shaped with the Opposition Liberal party in disarray.

Kevin Rudd, our current piss poor excuse for a Prime Minister is trying to go to Copenhagen with the world’s first signed sealed and delivered climate legislation. He’s like a little dog trying to make a good impression and desperate to portray Australia as climate change pioneers. The opposition leader thinks the same too and has bet his shirt on it

Malcolm “I have a permanent smug grin cos I’m already a multimillionaire and none of this matters” Turnbull, leader of the Liberal Party is desperately trying to get all his own modifications and objections into the Government ETS plan that is going to be made into legislation so he and his political party can be climate change heroes too.

The pair of them, Rudd and Turnbull are sounding ever more hysterical about climate change – predicting near end of the world scenarios and weather and sea level rise etc unless we act right now and how DARE anyone else have a different opinion.

Its come down to a battle to show the Australian public which political party has the best action on climate change.

Turnbull is so caught up in this game that he even said the Australian people are looking to decide

“which party can we trust to take effective action on climate change?”
“The party that the Australian people trust will win in a landslide – that is a political reality.”

So its not actually about whats best for Australia, its people or the climate (not that the climate cares, its just fine, by the way) its about keeping yourself in office and being seen to “do the right thing”

Well, some of the opposition party are somewhat smart and can see the man made global warming thing for what it is – i.e a crock of shit – and are busying themselves to replace Turnbull and try to inject some sense into the political debate and hopefully try to save the Australian people from an trading scheme worse than death. And its all got ugly this morning with a revolt and leadership challenges

Prime Minister Rudd keeps the heat on the debate too, thinking he’s got a sleeve full of aces now – he recent comments of

“sceptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom … Our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them.”

are so typical of the political Chicken Little the sky is falling mentality that drives me nuts.

Rudds own “Minister for Climate Change” (what the heck is that job title??) was saying:

“there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn (about the Liberal Party fallout) and that is that the extremists, the conspiracy theorists and the climate change sceptics have gained ground and are winning this argument”

Implying that the Liberal Party is your Climate enemy. Its almost pointing and saying “see, look at them over there setting fire to the world with their lies”

Well if the climate change sceptics are getting their message across in politics, then all I can say is

“thank fuck, its about time”

Someone needs to put a brake on the war of political point scoring, rhetoric. Someone needs to muzzle the scaremongering climate doomsdayer that Kevin Rudd has turned into and get back to the basic argument

Forget climate change – it is changing, it always will, its what it does – the main point of debate for all this is

Is Climate Change driven by man made (or any kind) of CO2?

Because if there is *any* doubt on this single point (and there is – CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, it never has) – then isn’t the only responsible course of action to hold off and make sure all the facts are clear before committing the Australian public to a lifetime of totally unnecessary taxation? Jumping the gun for popularity is not the kind of politics Australia needs.

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

The climatologists at the center of last week’s leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

“What they’ve done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world,” Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made “something innocent into something nefarious.”

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues,” he said this week.

We don’t doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.’s Fourth Assessment Report: “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?” does not “read well,” it’s true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn’t delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

online.wsj.com

By James Delingpole

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

via telegraph.co.uk

BPSDB

The view from

• the knowledgeable and informed
• the rational and sane
• the climate change Deniers

In keeping up with the theft and release of the emails from the Climate Research Unit I have collected a number of posts that did not fit into any of themes I have planned, but which are of interest regardless. It struck me that they do form a sort of survey of the story as it is seen from different perspectives, so I offer it as such.

the knowledgeable and informed

Probably the most important post in the last couple of days has been the official statements from the University of East Anglia and the Climate Research Unit.The part that interested me most was that dealing with Freedom of Information requests because, as far as I can gather from the whole business, it was the one area where the participants might have played a little fast and loose.

“In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.”

Of course official communiques are not always the most reliable source of information in the world, but I have the feeling that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor made it clear to one and all that he better have the truth before he put himself out there, or someone’s vitals were going to be slow roasted while they were still wearing them.

Newsweek interviewed James Hansen about the story, and surprise surprise, he reaches the same conclusion as every other thinking scientist: James Hansen: Climate Change Evidence ‘Overwhelming,’ Hacked E-mails ‘Indicate Poor Judgement’

Greenhoof does a nice summary (useful for sharing with the thinking public) in The SwiftHack Scandal: What You Need to Know:

For your convenience, the following 6 points each links to the corresponding section of this post:

The scientific consensus on climate change remains strong.
The impacts of catastrophic climate change continue to rear their ugly head.
Hacking into private computer files is illegal.
All of the emails were taken out of context.
The story is being pushed by far-right conspiracy theorists.
Scientists are human beings and they talk frankly amongst themselves.

Bart Verheggen reminds us that if the Deniers actually had any scientific case they would be talking about it instead. This whole charade is because they have nothing rational, so in desperation they try the irrational:

What do you do if you don’t agree with the science (or with the perceived political implications thereof), but don’t have any real evidence to back up your position?

You could try breaking in the computer system of a renowned institute, to then release the stolen emails and documents via internet.

Bart has also been doing a blgosphere survey  ‘Climategate’ blogstorm with some interesting “finds” which I won’t repeat.

The Intersection takes a different tack to expose how scientificaly irrelevant the emails are in The “ClimateGate” Burden of Proof:

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don’t think this is remotely true, but let’s assume it.

Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :

1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.

2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.

However, “Why the “Recent Lack of Warming” and the “Hockey Stick” Matter is a relevant post by the Texas State Climatologist discussing the importance of “the Hockey Stick” as an education tool. It clarified for me why this particular piece of evidence causes such rabid frothing among the spittle spewers.

Notwithstanding the scientific irrelevance of the hack, it is significant for two reasons. First there is the obvious political impact as some of the public are shaken by this. Then there is what Mark Lynas titled “Leaked emails mark dangerous shift in climate denial strategy. Instead of targeting high-profile science communicators like Al Gore, climate deniers are now encouraging mistrust of those who collect and interpret global warming data. (First published by the Guardian.)“

That can act as a segue to future posts, but it’s an excellent point worth marking now; the battle may be moving to a different field and we need to be prepared for it.

the rational and sane

As far as I can tell the broad masses are as indifferent to the Deniers are they are to the issue itself, which is a mixed blessing at best. It still begs the question as to what the “thinking public” are saying? Here’s a few finds.

Letter to a Global Warming Denier is an interesting read from someone who admits “I don’t understand the science of global warming and, chances are, neither do you.” and comes to the perfectly rational conclusion that “The potential of a Christopher Horner to make bogus claims on behalf of cynical interests seems to me greater than the potential that an I.P.C.C. might muster the support of thousands of cynical scientists from around the world in order to advance a vast left-wing conspiracy.” It’s a good example of how someone who does not understand any of the science can still make sense of the issue.

The title  immediately attracted me to Peter Ryley’s Taking a leak and I was treated to a quick analysis of the Denier claims as typical conspiracy obsessive’s muddled thinking with which he has professional expertise. We need him deconstructing at a lot more of the Denier memes.

The influential BoingBoing has been covering it, and quoted Futurismic’s Tom Marcinko:

“The East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s scientists disagreed in some particulars, and used peer-review to resolve them (and continue to do so). No one is paying them to cover up evidence that climate change isn’t real or isn’t caused by humans — but they are conducting science the way that scientists do.”

and makes some good points in the follow up More Insight on Those Leaked Climate Change Emails:

1) Evidence of vast conspiracy is sorely lacking. Ditto evidence disproving the scientific consensus on climate change. This isn’t the “nail in the coffin” of anything. However, the emails do prompt some legit questions about transparency and how professional researchers respond to criticism in the age of the armchair scientist.

2) Theft is bad. But if you’re a researcher who can explain context to the general public, decrying theft shouldn’t be your primary objective right now.

3) [to Deniers] The Mainstream Media is covering this. They just might not be covering it the way you want, and that’s probably a good thing.

Thoughtful, rational, accurate. I just hope this is representative of a broad demographic.

the climate change Deniers

Other than having seizures of ecstasy under the misapprehension that the emails actually prove anything, and cross posting every rant that any of them spew, cf Lynas (new strategy) the Denialosphere is:

Not only are the Deniers trying to sell a dead parrot as a Thoroughbred racing horse, now they are trying to get it to breed. Wattsupmybutt reports that Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one, but Gareth Renowden does a lovely job of exposing the lie and the liars:

None of these cranks should be accorded any respect in future. By their words shall we know them, and their words show them to be ignorant, bullying fools. De Freitas should withdraw and apologise, or resign from his post at Auckland University, and if Treadgold, Dunleavy, McShane, Leyland,or any other member of the NZ CSC want to partake in public debate on the subject of climate science, they should expect derision to be heaped on them and their views.

NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist

But of course that is not the only attempt to spread the imaginary plague. In “The real Hadley Centre might not be so innocent” Stirewalt seeks to demonstrate that the Hadley Centre is also guilty of the same crimes as CRU (ie none, but in the Denier mind …). The line of alleged reasoning is as follows:

1. First and foremost, the Met Office Hadley Centre (HC) has a reputation for climate alarmism
2. Second, as GreenWiseBusiness has noted with approval, the HC frequently collaborates with an institution identified as “the University of East Anglia” but in all probability the CRU.
3. Third, Peter Stott, one of the HC’s most prominent scientists, was addressed, copied, or otherwise mentioned no less than twenty-eight times in the e-mails contained in the CRU archive.

As a study of the irrational this is priceless, including the logical errors:

1. Bulverism, he assumes as true what they actually most need to prove, ie that climate science is wrong and/or that the science was ever tampered with;
2. Correlation equals causation ie assumes that if they are both “alarmist” then it is caused by fraud in both cases. While it is actually true that their stance is the same for the same reason,  the reason is that they know the facts and are capable of rational thought; a foreign concept to Stirewalt it seems.
3. Guilt by association, ie that the two centres cooperated on climate research. There’s a shock, two research Institutes studying the same thing cooperate … clearly something nefarious there;
4. and that Stott received some of the emails in question. There is so much illogic/distortion here it needs to be parsed further;
   1. Which emails?
      1. Most of the emails are totally innocent to even the most disturbed mind; were those the ones Stott got?
      2. Even the ones that the Deniers are having a hissy fit about don’t actually show anything of substance;
      3. We’re guilty because of emails we receive? who even reads all of the emails they are cc’ed?
      4. We’re guilty if we’re mentioned in an email? mentioned doing what? anything?

and on it goes. It’s really quite an unbelievable example of hysteria fueled incoherence. I particularly love the “received emails”; has Stirewalt ever received a 419 scam email? AHA! guilty of fraud!

There’s the global warming skeptic bingo, the ID creationist bingo, etc; we really need to create the Muddled Thinking Bingo for Deniers using logical fallacies and then we can all play at once.

Equally irrational and blatantly politically motivated is the attempt to involve John Holdren because he sent Michael Mann one of the emails (which says absolutely nothing that isn’t totally innocent, of course). Let me guess, and a girl in Holdren’s grade four class went on to be an extra in a movie with … Kevin Bacon!

What? no mention of Paul Hudson who was also cc’ed copies of emails? Whoops, sorry. That would be logical and consistent behaviour … what was I thinking? The Wingnut desperation is too stupid for words.

Speaking of irrational, Taranto at the Wall Street Journal opens with “The massive University of East Anglia global-warmist archives …” so you can tell where that is going.  He states “one of the most damning findings in the archives concerns the corruption of the peer-review process.” That would be the finding that there is no actual evidence for, and indeed may have been ethically correct behaviour.

From there he does a wish list of possible criminal charges (in your dreams doughboy), and ends with “This promises be a boon for comedians …” Like Taranto you mean? because real journalists recognized right away there was no substantive story here.

Since only a raving ideologue or the very simple minded could imagine the emails say anything about the actual science being corrupt, much less exposed as a hoax, it’s given that those who are simple minded raving ideologues are on the band wagon. Predictably the Senator from Hee Haw, Lord HaHa, and Dr Huh? are making statements that we can only hope are actionable with lawsuits, (here, here, and here).

On the bright side, the various Denier aggregators are no longer “All Climategate all of the time”, so maybe even they are getting bored with it.

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

St. Stupid’s Day Parade by Laughing Squid

St. Stupid’s Day Parade 2009 by Laughing Squid

St. Stupid’s Day by Laughing Squid

St. Stupid’s Day Parade 2009 by Laughing Squid

St. Stupid’s Day Parade by Laughing Squid

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

• The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
• The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.

Many commentators have been predicting that climate change will create conflict. Most of us have envisaged that the conflict will arise when large numbers of people have to move from land that climate change will make unfit for habitation. The great river deltas of the world are home to half a billion people and if global warming continues in the way that most scientists expect then these people will have to move on, literally.

That is perhaps the most likely source of conflict between humans that is foreseeable. History teaches that many conflicts are caused by greed, jealously and human ambition, but many have also been caused by geophysical events which have a human source. If one land becomes for whatever reason uninhabitable or inhospitable for a group of humans they will turn their attention to other lands where the grass is always greener.

A report published in the Proceedings of the Nataional Acadamey of Science for the United States has shown some connection between climate change and wars in Africa. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/20/0907998106.full.pdf+html

The authors, Burke, Miguel, Satyanath, Dykema and Lobell, all American academic researchers, have concluded that  there are strong historical links between civil wars and land temperatures in Sub Saharan Africa; in the warmer years there are more wars than in the cooler years.

We know that there is an established link between rainfall (or lack of it) and wars in Sub Saharan Africa. Drought causes famine which means that people compete for food, often using aggression to secure food. Sub Saharan Africa depends upon rainfall for food production and food production accounts for 50% of the gross domestic product and 90% of the employment.

No one knows enough to be able to accurately predict the effect of climate change on rainfall in Sub Saharan Africa. It seems commonsense that if the region is deprived of rainfall there will be more famine and more conflict.

However, we do know that the planet is getting warmer and the warmer parts of the world are heating up more quickly than the temperate climes. The researchers have studied the relationship between rising temperatures and the incidence of war and conclude that a one degree rise in average temperature in the region is associated with significant increases in civil war, which over the eleven years studied could mean a remarkable 49% increase in civil war linked to rising temperatures.

Projecting further temperature increases over the next few years leads to the conclusion that there is an increase chance of war in the region, with the increased likelihood being as high as 54%. The reason for this is that food production is not just linked to rainfall but also to temperatures. Crops grown in the region do not produce as much food when the temperatures are hotter than usual. Whether famine is caused by drought or rising temperatures, the hunger is the same and the motivation to seize the food of more fortunate people is just as strong.

Two hundred thousand people have lost their lives in the civil war in Sudan. Two millions have had to flee their homes. They do so because of war, caused by the lack of food. The lack of food is caused by lack of rainfall and rising temperatures and these events are almost certainly caused by manmade climate change.

It is a sobering thought that one of the results of the developed world’s greenhouse gas emissions is the loss of life and famine in the undeveloped world.

Could it just be that Australia has become the touchstone in the fight against Climate Change Legislation to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

This story is raging across Australia at the moment. At that link are further links to related matters, all worth looking at.

The story is also making headway in the UK as well as in the U.S.

As I have mentioned before, Australian politics, although different, is similar to what exists now in the U.S. The only difference is the names of the parties involved.

The current Government is Labor, and their ideals, aspirations, principles and followings are the same as for the Democratic Party in the U.S. However, the opposition is called The Liberal Party of Australia, and that immediately gives the impression of something that they most definitely are not. That Liberal Party is in fact the main Conservative Party, and their ideals are the same as for the Republican Party in the U.S.

Again the structure of politics is also similar to that in the U.S. We have a Lower House, the House of Representatives, and the upper house, that house of review, The Senate. Whoever has the most numbers in the House of Representatives forms the Government, and the leader of that Party then becomes the Prime Minister. There is no direct public vote for the leader of the Country. At every Federal Election, all members in the Reps come up for election, and half the Senate comes up for election. In that manner, the party who has the greatest popularity at the time might win the most seats in the Reps, but the Senate, having less numbers and with only half of them up for election, then the possibility of gaining control in the Senate is considerably more difficult, lessening the chance of a virtual rubber stamp.

At the most recent election, in 2007, Labor won quite easily in the Reps, and formed a new Government under Kevin Rudd, who became the new Prime Minister. However, the numbers in the Senate were a lot closer, and with those incumbents not up for election, Labor could not gain control of the Senate. In fact those numbers in the Senate are very delicately balanced. The Liberal Party forms a tight and close allegiance coalition with The National Party of Australia, who have similar ideals as they do, the Liberals being the urban Conservatives ans the Nationals being the rural and regional Conservatives.

Labor has 32 Senators.

The Liberal/National coalition has 37 Senators.

The Greens have 5 Senators, and there are 2 Independent Senators.

So while Labor easily commands the Reps, the Senate is delicately poised.

That brings us now to this Climate Change Legislation, ironically called here in Australia the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. (CPRS)

When Labor won Government, the first thing Kevin Rudd did in a huge flourish was to ratify The Kyoto Protocol. He then set about the task of formulating legislation to introduce that Carbon Trading scheme, similar to what you are debating in the U.S. with the Waxman Markey Bill and the Kerry Boxer Bill. The legislation was introduced into the Reps and after debate passed easily on the numbers that they controlled in that lower house. However, when the Bill was sent to the Senate, the debate was positively fierce, and after much time, committees and further debate, the Bill was voted down for a first time and sent back to the Lower House.

Labor then waited for a time, and sought to reintroduce the Bill. Again fearing that the Senate would reject the Bill outright, they then sought to meet with the (Conservatives) Coalition and work out some amendments that might be suitable for them, in an effort to get it through the Senate. That phase of discussion about amendments has been a long one and procedural in nature. Along the way, there have been opponents at every step, mostly the National Party group of Senators, who have threatened promised to oppose it no matter what.

The amendments were finally nutted out and taken to the Party room where the Coalition again debated the merits of the Bill with the new amendments. Debate was long and intense, and in the end the leader of the Coalition Malcolm Turnbull came out and said he had broad consensus to finally allow the Bill to pass.

That’s where this current turmoil started.

It would seem that not everybody agreed that this was the course of action to follow. Coalition members from both sides came out and publicly said they were not happy with the result. Turnbull called for a Leadership vote and won a close contest, although his opponent was a virtual nobody, effectively weakening his own position. Turnbull again trumpeted that this was further indication that the Bill should be passed. Thinking that this should effectively settle the matter, in fact, the opposite happened. Those hardened against the Bill no matter what now became even louder, and in fact, stood by their conviction and started to resign their Parliamentary positions. One or two publicly opposing the leader might seem like it’s just a small thing, but the number publicly opposing was fast becoming an avalanche, and when senior members started to resign, it then became quite major.

It might look like political suicide, and also the destruction of the whole party, but what it has done is to show that some politicians are actually showing the strength of their convictions.

The Labor Government must be laughing all the way to the next polling date, when the perception might be that they have the opportunity to win in a landslide.

However, it has achieved one thing, and that thing is surprisingly huge.

It has actually got the Media’s attention, and also wider attention in the general public, not just the political turmoil, but the root cause of it, this iniquitous CPRS Emissions Trading Scheme.

What is also in the news now is the growing Climategate fiasco.

All Australia watches with bated breath as the position changes by the hour.

If there is one great big thing that will come form this, then that is that the CPRS Bill will either be voted down in the Senate for a second time, or the Bill will be delayed until the new year.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd desperately wanted the Bill to pass through the Senate and come into law.

Why?

He wanted to take this to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference as the all conquering political hero who brought in the legislation to introduce this new tax emissions trading scheme. This would give him the opportunity to strut the World Stage in a grand manner.

All Australia is now talking about this. The media just could not ignore it, because the root cause concerned the very argument they have been assiduously keeping away from. From that, people in nevery day life who may have had no interest at all in this ETS are talking about it.

The ETS was rejected once by the Senate, and hopefully, the Senate will reject this Bill for what is essentially just a huge new Tax.

The hoped for rejection of the Bill in the Senate will be used by the Government for the most base of political reasons, but at least now it’s out in the open, and people are actually talking about it.

We, the people, the people of Australia, are finally getting the debate we have been denied for so long.

UPDATE

There is a 15 hour time difference between U.S. Eastern Time and Australian Eastern Time, so as you read this, add 15 hours to that time and that’s the time it is where I am here in Australia.

The Labor Government was hoping to have this Legislation for the CPRS passed by this afternoon Friday when the Senate rose from sitting for the week. The Government said that the Bill with those new amendments would only stand if it it was passed by that time.

The Senate rose just on one hour ago, and the Bill had not proceeded to a vote, as debate was still in progress.

This is a significant pointer as to how the Bill will now go.

The numbers were finely balanced. With the Greens, the Independents and the National Party Senators all saying categorically that they would not vote for the Bill in any form, Labor needed some of the Liberal Senators willing to ‘cross the floor’, and vote with them to pass the Bill. Earlier in the week, before this whole saga started to intensify, that seemed to be the most likely outcome, because all that was needed was for 7 Liberal Party Senators to vote with them to ensure passage, and there were around 10 Liberal Party Senators aligned with the intention of allowing passage of the Bill.

Why what has just happened is so significant, is if that was still the case, the Bill would have proceeded to a vote on the numbers and then been passed into legislation. However, what has happened now is that with tensions so high, those Senators have decided to wait until the leadership tension is resolved, and it looks more and more likely that a new leadership team is falling in to place, and that means there is every possibility that any subsequent vote in the Senate will ensure that the Bill will not be passed.

This is a cleft stick for Prime Minister Rudd. Admitted it gives him a trigger for a double dissolution election with the distinct chance he would win in a landslide, giving him that ‘rubber stamp’ in the Senate to pass any Bill he wishes to introduce.

However, he desperately wanted Passage of the Bill prior to Copenhagen, so he could use that to enhance his standing with the UN. However, it seems very likely now that nothing much will come out of Copenhagen, and what that means is that the possibility of passing any ETS Bill after this Copenhagen meeting becomes distinctly more difficult.

What it also means is that people are at last really entering debate on this matter. The media are also picking up on it, and it is being discussed in much wider circles.

So, Mr Rudd is now in the proverbial ‘Scylla and Charybdis‘ position, and although this looks good for his side of the political fence, it also augers well for the non Government side of politics.

Maybe, just maybe, Australia actually might just be that touchstone in the anti Climate Change/Global Warming debate.

Renee Schoof writes for McClatchy -

“The Environmental Protection Agency is continuing its crackdown on coal pollution with a new plan to cut sulfur dioxide — a move that would clean up the air for millions of Americans and bring some relief to people who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases.

The new rule, which was proposed earlier this month, would be the first time since 1971 that the EPA has tightened controls on sulfur dioxide to protect the public health.

“This would be an important step to ensure the health of the American public,” said Dr. Alan H. Lockwood, a professor of neurology and nuclear medicine at the University of Buffalo. “Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from inhaling pollutants from coal burning.”

Read more at McClatchy

THE COOLING EARTH

Nowadays it is fashionable to talk and write about global warming; so much so that it may sound like blasphemy if I say that the Earth is cooling. But it is a simple fact that all members of the solar system except the Sun are in fact cooling off continuously from the time of inception. Any hot body will shed its heat until its temperature corresponds to the temperature of its environment. If we consider the Earth as a whole, including its atmosphere, the temperature may be roughly 250 degree C more than the outer space. It’s inevitable that the earth must cool off, for a considerable time to come.

 Heat received by the Earth from the Sun is neglible, beyond 55 degree north and 55 degree south latitude. The slanting sunrays will not produce any worthwhile heat. Again, the heat received in the middle region up to 8 am and after 5 pm can be ignored. Whatever heat is absorbed between 8 am and 5 pm is lost during the night! All this is in summer. In winter sunlight has no effect at all.

 “But we have striking and sufficient evidence that the superficial shell of the globe is not only heated above that of the ambient air, by the action of its own deep-seated fires”  (Physical Geography by Thomas Milner)

 How does the earth remain warm? We must look inwards for an answer. The interior of the earth is very hot (The reasons have been explained in the article below on Gravity). The temperature may be thousands of degrees C. Slowly this heat seeps outwards. As we go down the earth it becomes extremely hot. Heat may be transferred from the interior to the surface of the earth by the process of conduction. Heat is also transferred by water molecules. If there is no water in the oceans, the ocean beds would be extremely hot. But actually the temperature of the water in ocean beds may be of the order of 3 degree C. This is because of convection currents caused by the ice caps in the Polar Regions and the hot cauldron of sea bed below. This can be proved by a simple experiment.

 A drum filled with water may be heated from below and cooled by a block of ice floating above. If you measure the temperature, you may find the water slightly warmer below the ice block than the water at the bottom of the drum. Water molecules, absorbing heat at the bottom, travel up and ice cooled water from the top comes down. In the same way hot water from the sea bed goes up and water (at 0 degree C) below the polar ice cap travels down towards the sea bed. This way heat from the interior of the earth is slowly transferred to the sea water. Eventually this heat is transmitted to outer space.

 There is another less known mechanism of heat transfer, from the interior of the earth. Water molecules are driven towards the ocean beds under tremendous pressure. We know how it is, if it rains continuously for a few days! What if it rains for 365 days? Or imagine a water tank constructed in a field (bottom being earth without water) the height of the tank being 6kms. Well, this is how the ocean bed is! The constant pounding of the ocean bed by the pressure of up to 1000 atmospheres, makes the earth pulpy and water infiltrates down. Marine geologists tell us that the terrain below the ocean is not much different from the terrain of the continents. When the surface temperature of the earth was higher than 100 degree C, there was no water in the seas. There was no difference between land and sea. It was all land. The sea bed was normal height of the plain. The continents are merely plains of greater height like Tibetan plateau we are familiar with. There are mountains and valleys in the ocean beds also. Tunnels and caves we find in the continent are there in the sea beds too. These will get filled with water; under high temperature, acquired from geo-thermal energy and high pressure, the water becomes super heated steam. Water goes down but steam presses up and ultimately finds its way to the ocean. There are about 30 thousand volcanoes and any number of hot springs in the ocean through which heat continuously comes out. This may, perhaps, be the source of hot currents in the ocean.

 The oceans can never be heated from above. The warm layer of water formed by sun rays cannot travel down and will become cool before the next day break. The ice cold water from the Polar region will sink to the ocean bed, never to rise up, unless heated by the earth. Ultimately, the whole ocean will become a block of ice if the earth is heated only from above by the Sun.

 Let us now look at a strange thing about the Earth. The Arctic Circle is comparatively well populated with Eskimo’s etc living permanently there. The corresponding region in the Antarctic Circle is extremely cold and inhospitable. Man makes his presence felt in this region only in the southern summer. The reasons are obvious. The Arctic region being land locked, there are any number of hot springs there, (see my article on Saraswati ) warming the atmosphere. On the other hand the Antarctica is surrounded by deep oceans : the Pacific ocean on one side and the Indian ocean on the opposite side. There must be hot springs in this region also; but being too deep the warm waters get cooled.\

From the above discussion one thing is clear – the earth is kept warm by geo thermal energy, and not by the heat from the Sun. Today life forms depend very much on sunlight; but the bottom of the sea too contains even developed life forms. Tomorrow if the sun suddenly disappears, I am sure mother Earth will continue to nurture her children, giving the warmth from her own bosom.

 If you look at the map of the world, you will find that the whole of the hemisphere on the Pacific side and 90 % of the southern hemisphere is water. Comparatively few points of the continent comprise of urban areas. Industrial activity in these urban centers can contribute but a miniscule percentage to global warming, which has been going on much before industrialization. (see para on CO₂)

 Therefore, all this hullabaloo about global warming may be unwarranted.

According to one theory, ‘Ice Age’ occurs every 18,000 years or so. The warming earth melts the polar ice cap, and the ice cold water comes down to northern Canada, Europe and northern Siberia. This will cause severe winter and the whole area will be covered with ice ushering in another ‘Ice Age’. The cycle repeats itself.

Engineering Thinking Extra Is A Short Review Of A Current Hot Topic

It is now becoming apparent that a massive fraud has been underway regarding the debate over global warming. (For a good summary see this article by James Delingpole in the Telegraph.co.uk.)

As a result, Engineering Extra is sad but compelled to assign its highest Five Jacks Shameful Behavior rating to those scientists and engineers who have been involved in such a monumental betrayal of the public trust. If not exposed, this betrayal may have led to unscientifically-sound legislation (“cap and trade”) and EPA regulations, which could cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

As pointed out in an earlier post (see Scientific Sins in “Advice From Professionals: Who Do You Trust? (Part 2)“), engineers and scientists are not immune to corruption. Normally, however, such corruption tends to be weeded out over time by the scientific method.

But what about the Global Warming fraud? How did this happen? It happened because the work of these renegade scientists was funded by the government, which is not subject to the scientific method.

By contrast, engineers and scientists who work in the private sector are disciplined by the competitive nature of the marketplace. False data or exaggerated claims will be gleefully exposed by competitors, appropriately causing the fraudulent firm to lose profits and possibly face bankruptcy. In the private sector, therefore, there is a strong and ongoing survival incentive to root out junk science.

But scientific organizations that receive all or most of their funding from the government have no competition, ergo they have no long-term concerns about market competitiveness. To the contrary, some employees of such firms — in order to maintain their jobs and secure promotions — provide their political masters whatever it is that those masters wish to hear, regardless of whether or not it drifts from the truth.

To Minimize Corruption,
Science and Engineering Should Be Performed
By Competitive Enterprises,
Not By The Government

Corollary:

Scientific Advice To The Government Should Be Provided
By Private Firms Through Competitive Bidding,
Not By Government Employees

-Ed Walker