Lord Christopher Monckton in St. Paul Minnesota.

President Barak Obama’s address to the United Nations

President of Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus

Richard Lindzen at the Competitive Enterprize Institute

Robert Carter on Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

Willie Soon at  UCLA

Al Gore on Ted TV

Keith Lockitch, CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE

01-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

02-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

03-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

04-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

05-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

06-18 The Climate Wars 1of3 Battle Begins

07-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

08-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

09-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

10-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

11-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

12-18 The Climate Wars 2of3 Fightback

13-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

14-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

15-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

16-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

17-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

18-18 The Climate Wars 3of3 Fight for the Future

Background Articles and Videos

White House Releases Landmark Climate Change Report

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 4 of 4

CO2: Undergirding Modern Science

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

THE BOTTOMLESS WELL: Are We Running out of Energy?

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Global Warming/Climate Change

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites 

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Cap and Trade

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

Green Government Gestapo Goons: Global Warming Police Force Invades Your Home And Living in Your Home May Be A Crime!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

• Playing the telephone game with the denialist right
• I’m not asking you to hang a baby by a broomstick, but…
• Essential or non-essential defense spending?
• Everybody relax. Turns out climate sensitivity is virtually zero.
• Remembering Apollo 11 [via BA]

One action the film suggests, repeatedly, is to think for yourself and not accept anything other people tell you without checking it for yourself.

They’re betting that by the end of the film, you are so impressed that you will do any further research not with an open mind, but with a mind hungry to hear more of the same.

They’re betting that you won’t take the time to research the topics the film brings up. Those lists at the end of the film are so long, and research doesn’t sound exactly fun when you’re all riled up and angry and righteous.

Or, you will do some research, but only using the sources they list, not even seeking out what other websites and books have to say about it.

Emotionally, they used this film to recruit you to their own secret society, and it is very hard to suddenly change your mind and turn your back on your brothers. That’s one of the classic techniques of propaganda.

And if nothing else, they’re betting that you just won’t have the time.

(By the way, if you are doing your own research, I’m willing to bet that every person who is preaching about the New World Order, anywhere, is using the same tactics of fear, anger, confusion, and suggestions for action lead to isolation. Check it out and see if I’m right.)

As just one example, let’s look at the Oregon Petition.

If you read what the filmmakers suggest you read about this petition, do you discover these facts?

Frederick Seitz, the premier scientist to put his stamp of approval on the petition, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and ran a research center for Rockefeller University. Esoteric Agenda previously stated that the Council and the Rockefellers are part of the pagan conspiracy. Seitz also worked as a research physicist at GE, whose logo is used throughout the film as supposedly a symbol of evil. And Seitz was very much a favorite of the government, serving on both the National Defense Research Committee and the National Academy of Science (which, by the way, has stated they had nothing at all to do with the Oregon Petition).

So is Seitz a poster boy for the good guys who see through the “lie” of global warming, or is he a poster boy for the bad guys who are helping to plan the New World Order? That’s a big inconsistency in the film’s logic.

And of the other major scientists who crafted the Oregon Petition, one of them isn’t a climate scientist at all (Arthur B. Robinson), and the other (Willie Soon) works at the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory, which is partially funded by Exxon.

“Washington’s a black hole. You send money into it. It burns half your money. And then, after burning half  your money, the other half comes back in the form of political pork-barrel. The loser’s game is to send your sqealers to Washington to see if they can get a bigger piece of the pork than the other guys’ squealers. I refuse to participate in it.”

~T.J. Rodger– The American Enterprise (July-August 1997)

 ”…I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. …”

~William Happer 

The Free-Market Case for Green

“…A dedicated, unabashed, free market capitalist, T. J. Rodgers takes a businessmans and engineers view of global warming. How serious is it, and what should we make of the plans offered up by politicians such as Al Gore and Barack Obama to deal with it? If cap and trade or pollution taxes on CO2 are not the answer, what is?…”

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2

William Happer EPW Testimony

William Happer EPW Testimony

“…Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm. The key question is: will the net effect of the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity?

I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. I predict that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit “the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” At the time, the 18th amendment seemed to be exactly the right thing to do – who wanted to be in league with demon rum? It was the 1917 version of saving the planet. More than half the states enacted prohibition laws before the 18th amendment was ratified. Only one state, Rhode Island, voted against the 18th amendment. Two states, Illinois and Indiana, never got around to voting and all the rest voted for it. There were many thoughtful people, including a majority of Rhode Islanders, who thought that prohibition might do more harm than good. But they were completely outmatched by the temperance movement, whose motives and methods had much in common with the movement to stop climate change. Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2. Prohibition was a mistake, and our country has probably still not fully recovered from the damage it did. Institutions like organized crime got their start in that era. Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our country in analogous ways.

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated. Let me turn now to the science and try to explain why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.

The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is “positive feedback.” With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water.

In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.

But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models. …”

“…For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind. We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc. Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs. The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html

CO2 is a trace gas

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Background Articles and Videos

CO2 is not a pollutant, but pollutants are massmedia and IPCC.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Tax: Gore’s and Obama’s Revenge on The American People–Let Them Freeze and Sweat!

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Tea Parties Take Off In Texas–Spreading Nationwide–Are You Going To Washington Fair? Millions Celebrate The Second American Revolution–Saturday, July 4, 2009

Operation Family Freedom (OFF): Millions Celebrate Washington Fair, Saturday, July 4, 2009–The Second American Revolution  

Here are the ocean proxies used in Trouet et al. As usual in Team studies, it is a total mystery how they are selected. Trouet et al is a bit different from usual Team studies in that it argues for a MWP-LIA global reorganization, something that I’ll get to soon.

Today, I want to chat some more about the proxies themselves. I’ve already reviewed the Cape Ghir alkenones (an SST proxy inverted in the Trouet graphic) and the Palmyra coral proxies. I’ll quickly review the other proxies.

Sicre Iceland Ocean Sediment

This smoothed graphic shows an elevated MWP offshore Iceland – which is consistent with both regional and global MWP. I’m unaware of any digital version of this data; Trouet seem to have used “grey” data of the type that all too often floats around the Team. [Update - a CA reader sent me this data which I've placed online. See link in Refs.] This has a very big MWP as shown in the plot – similar to but the spline doesn’t quite match Trouet)

Bermuda
This is Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea data often used as evidence of an MWP. It is digitally available online. A detailed discussion at CA here here .

Florida
I haven’t posted on this data, though it’s mentioned here . Lund et al 2006 archived data, but the thing that’s shown in the Trouet figure doesn’t appear to occur in any of the digital information. It looks to me like Trouet have illustrated the Lund et al estimates of Florida Current transport (their Figure 3 is shown below – oriented here with AD2000 at the right to match the Trouet figure.)

Lund et al 2006 Figure 3. Transport reconstruction for the Florida Current. b, Estimated total transport 0–1100 yr BP. The most probable transport values (thick black line) are based on mean densities in Fig. 2. The grey circles represent transport estimates based on density values randomly sampled from within the error envelopes in Fig. 2, while the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence limit for the transport calculation (see Methods).

Cariaco
I’ve had a few posts on Cariaco, most recently in connection with David Black’s 2007 study (a very high resolution study that was promptly archived) – see here here, but also elsewhere.
Trouet don’t use Black’s data, but an earlier 2001 data set by Haug showing Ti content – a very widely cited data set BTW, that has been said to show north-south movements of the ITCZ, a topic that I’ve discussed from time to time.

Aculeo
They cite Jenny et al 2002 for this series. I’ve examined the article online here and I am unable to even guess what series is being represented in Trouet et al. as there is nothing remotely close to the Trouet illustration in the article.

Naivasha
This is Vershuren’s sediment series, mentioned in passing in connection with Mann et al 2008 here , also here. The data set was also used in the discussion of a warm Warm Pool MWP by Newton et al 2006 (See CA here). I’ll discuss whether there is a relevant difference between the viewpoint of Newton et al and Trouet on another occasion.

Western USA (Cook PDSI)
This is Cook’s PDSI. This was discussed in a couple of early CA posts – here in connection with Mann’s claim at RC that Cook stood as authority for exclusive use of an RE statistic – an untrue claim, since Cook claimed verification RE and CE as well. Also here in connection with replication issues, but I haven’t considered recently. I’ve discussed medieval drought on a number of occasions, including a discussion of submerged timber here, a topic also visited by Trouet coauthor Nick Graham.

Peru
This is Rein’s lithics data, which is available online, and which I’ve used in the past as an example of a non-European series with a pronounced medieval anomaly. See for example my AGU 2006 presentation speech notes PPT. It’s also used in Newton et al 2006.

Mindanao
This is one of Lowell Stott’s series showing a warm Warm Pool MWP (discussed previously at CA on a number of occasions – here and here ) with related data used in Newton et al. Data is available online, but I haven’t figured out which series is embodied in the Trouet version yet. Again I used this series in my 2006 AGU presentation as an example of a series with a MWP anomaly. Alicia Newton presented at the same session and charmingly put down Mann and Hughes who attacked her presentation.

As a general comment, I’m familiar with nearly all of these series. The only “new” ones are the Sicre Iceland series (which has an elevated MWP) and the Aculeo series (which I can’t make head nor tail of right now). Many of the other series are ones that I’ve cited as showing a MWP anomaly and/or have been used by studies such as Newton to argue a more northerly ITCZ in the medieval period – a concept that Willie Soon would not oppose. So it becomes increasingly hard to see what in Trouet et al “scuppers” the skeptics. Tomorrow, I’ll compare their circulation ideas to William Gray’s.

References:

• Cook, E. R., C. A. Woodhouse, C. M. Eakin, D. M. Meko, and D. W. Stahle. 2004. Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science 306: 1015-1018. http://tomix.homelinux.org/~thomas/eth/7_semester/large-scale_climate_variability_WS_2006_2007/unterlagen/edit/droughts_cook.pdf
• Haug, G. H., K. A. Hughen, D. M. Sigman, L. C. Peterson, and U. Rohl. 2001. Southward migration of the intertropical convergence zone through the Holocene. Science 293: 1304-1308.
• Jenny, B., B. L. Valero-Garcés, R. Villa-Marti´nez, R. Urrutia, M. Geyh, and H. Veit. 2002. Early to mid-Holocene aridity in Central Chile and the southern westerlies: The Laguna Aculeo record (34 S). Quaternary Research 58, no. 2: 160-170.
• Keigwin, L. D. 1996. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea. Science 274, no. 5292: 1503.
• Lund, D. C., J. Lynch-Stieglitz, and W. B. Curry. 2006. Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium. Nature 444: 601-604.
• Sicre, M. A., J. Jacob, U. Ezat, S. Rousse, C. Kissel, P. Yiou, J. Eiríksson, K. L. Knudsen, E. Jansen, and J. L. Turon. 2008. Decadal variability of sea surface temperatures off North Iceland over the last 2000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 268, no. 1-2: 137-142. Data
• Verschuren, D., K. R. Laird, and B. F. Cumming. 2000. Rainfall and drought in equatorial east Africa during the past 1, 100 years. Nature(London) 403, no. 6768: 410-414.

Commenters on this blog (Julia LeVan on Human CO2 Snuffs Out Sun’s 10.7cm Band) have noted that anthropogenic carbon dioxide may be unlikely to affect conditions on the sun. This is an important insight which may have a lot of truth in it, notwithstanding the likely resistance of climate scientist and global warming pundit and businessman Al Gore. Particularly since conditions on the sun are seemingly of primary, if not dominant, significance in Earthly climate.

Dr. Willie Soon, a senior Harvard astrophysicist, has observed that “when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up; and when sunspots are absent, the temperature goes down.” It may be disputable I suppose, but I think Dr. Soon is referring to temperatures on Earth, actually.

Dr. Soon goes on to further ignore (or perhaps minimimize is fair) the importance of carbon dioxide in controlling Earth’s climate, in this most interesting article, Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

H/T: ICECAP ‘Curious’ Why the Sun Has Been So Dim Lately, under category Blogosphere

Further quoting Dr. Soon, and his explanation of three rather direct ways in which solar output could have dominant influence on terrestrial climate:

“When the energy input to the Earth from the sun is lower, you can easily imagine then what the first effect would be — heating less of the ocean’s surface. This promotes less evaporation of water vapor from the ocean, reducing what we all know to be the major green house gas, water vapor, in contrast to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Then, you would say that if the sun provides less energy to warm the ocean’s surface, and there is less of this water vapor and less of the water vapor greenhouse effect, then the Earth begins warming less so than you would normally have during the normal sunspot activity maximum when the sun gives off more light-energy to the planetary system.

“The second way to think about this is if the sun is giving less light to the ocean’s surface, then you will also give less energy to transfer the heat, or even the material itself, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. The connection between the surface and the upper atmosphere is less than it would be, including the circulation patterns of the weather and the oceans.

“And then one can think about it another way, if you give less energy to transfer energy from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere, as high as 5 or 8 kilometers, then the chance for the system to produce these so-called thin high-cirrus clouds is less. These are the clouds that are very, very effective as a greenhouse blocker, these thin high-cirrus clouds. This is the idea that Professor Dickenson from MIT has suggested, that the Earth system may act like an iris. If it’s too warm, then the iris opens, if it’s too cold it closes, so that this fixture can trap heat, providing a very efficient way to warm or cool the Earth system.

“During a solar activity minimum, imagine that you produce less of these high-cirrus clouds, then the ability of the Earth to shed heat itself is a lot easier, therefore the system cools. And then continuing, when you don’t have enough energy to bring all of this water vapor and the currents more than a few kilometers up, then it all accumulates at the bottom of the system, producing more of the low clouds. And on low clouds we know that they are very effective at reflecting sunlight. So again, it’s another way that the Earth system can cool.

“And even another way to think about it is less energy intercepted in the tropical region, from say 20 or 30 degrees north and south latitudes, then you are able to transfer less heat energy to the polar regions, resulting in the arctic regions getting slightly cooler in that sense as well.

“So these are some of the possible scenarios that we’ve reached which in sort of a low-sunlight scenario would affect the Earth’s weather.”

Dr. Soon does not give much notice to carbon dioxide of any kind. He is also not a strong advocate of the “chilling stars” theory of Dr. Henrik Svensmark and others apparently; but his thoughtful explanation of three distinct and very reasonable mechanisms by which solar conditions strongly influence Earth’s climate is very noteworthy.

“If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change.”

Or even if the deep solar minimum does not continue (but our planet continues to  cool while CO2 levels continue to rise).

Interesting WBZ-TV video here:  ‘Curious’ Why The Sun Has Been So Dim Lately.

By Pat at DBKP

More and more anthropogenic global warming skeptics are coming out of the closet. The field of astrophysics, in particular, is replete with doubters about the importance of CO2 in the current context of global temperature rise. The most obvious reason being that the “model” the weathermen use does not contemplate the recent cooling trend. At all. And this development is worrisome to the Warmists. That is because many Warmists are not scientists, or are well outside of their field, or are relative light weights. For instance Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at Harvard writes:

“The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.”

“There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.

These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.”

“What WILL they think of next? Conference labels skeptics as having mental disorder”

That is right. If you disagree with the warmists then you are mentally ill.

“This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it’s being organised by the university’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’. It is a testament to the dumbed-down, debate-phobic nature of the modern academy that a conference is being held not to explore ideas – to interrogate, analyse and fight over them – but to tag them as perverse.”

Now, the most striking thing about this is that the “diagnosis” of mental instability has already been made by these organizers. And none of them are equipped to discuss the issue on its merits. Not only are they well outside of their field of study, but even actual knowledge of the subject matter does not seem to be a criteria for participation. Frankly, that sounds a bit crazy to us here at DBKP. Not only are we skeptics, and have duly reported on solar developments over the existence of global warming on this website, but as libertarians, we are concerned about the call for unlimited government intervention in our lives, as well as the apparent desire of Warmists to shut down all energy sources that aren’t considered “green”.

“The labelling of those who question certain scientific ideas or green ways of life as ‘deniers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘reptiles’ with a ‘baffling’ inability to understand The Science and act accordingly has a deeply censorious bent. If ‘climate change denial’ is a form of mass denial and self-deception, a fundamentally psychological disorder, then there is no need to engage in a meaningful public debate; instead people just need to be treated. Thus the Ecologist says ‘denial cannot simply be countered with information’; indeed there is apparently ‘plentiful historical evidence that increased information may even intensify denial’”
“Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements – their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently – is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.”

Now this should be laughable. AGW is a theory. The impact of solar radiation on climate change is a fact. So who are the nut cases? Is it Dr Soon’s fault that the theory is falling apart? In the minds of these elitists, the answer is yes. And he should be punished. So who is crazy?

Read more Great Posts at DBKP (Death By 1000 Papercuts)

Contrary to the few reports that did make it into the media, this two and a half day conference, run by The Heartland Institute, was not made up entirely of skeptics, and some of those who are on the side of the green alarmists actually did turn up.

The conference was attended by 700 Scientists, economists and policy makers, mainly asking the question of Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis? From all reports, it was a successfully run, tight conference, unlike the bloated gabfests run by the U.N. that have become mired in politics and political wheeling and dealing with large political entourages all jockeying for political point scoring, while real Scientists who urge caution are labelled as ‘deniers’, while politicians proclaim that the debate is now over.

Information arising from the conference is still being processed, and even though the actual conference may have finished, this information will filter through over the next few weeks.

One of the final speakers was Willie Soon, a Harvard University Astrophysicist and Geophysicist, and he said he was embarrassed and puzzled by the shallow Science expressed in papers that underpin the proposition that Planet Earth faces a catastrophic climate crisis caused by global warming.

Soon told the second International Conference on Climate Change here, “We have a system of peer reviewing of the scientific literature that is truly, truly appalling.”

He called for a “fairness doctrine” to be “applied to the funding of research and to the journal-review and publishing of papers.”

This echoed what was said in an earlier presentation from John Sununu, (former Chief Of Staff under President George H W Bush) who has a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. (See this earlier Post)

Soon said that the global warming alarmists, particularly the politicians and the few scientists who actually wrote the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, have captured the scientific paper process, and (also echoing John Sununu’s words) they have been successful in “taking control of who gets funding, who gets published, who gets acclaimed, and who gets demonized.”

“What happened to the peer-review process?” Soon asked rhetorically as he reviewed egregious and complex examples of doctored data and sloppy scholarship in global warming alarmist literature.

Rational, and even careful language like this will be sneered at by those on the other side. What needs to be taken into account is that just for the U.S. alone, there is Federal funding in the vicinity of $10 Billion (and climbing) each year, and all of that goes to agencies that will obviously produce reports that would ensure that funding keeps flowing, so any reports will be biassed so as not to bite the hand that feeds them. Anything contrary to that will either be not mentioned, glossed over, or hidden away under the heading of dissenting opinion.

This conference said more about the Climate Change debate than what you might hear from green alarmists, and the real pity is that this conference was not reported in the mainstream, other than to denigrate real Scientists, smear the conference organisers, and label those attending as skeptics and deniers.

Many people in the civilized world benefit from energy produced by the burning of fossil fuels.  In 2006, the Energy Information Administration reported that 86.1% of worldwide energy was produced from oil, coal and natural gas.¹ But along with the benefits, the combustion of these fossil fuels creates several pollutants that have been shown to harm humans: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbons.² The control of these pollutants is beyond the scope of this article and separate from the focus.

Carbon dioxide is also emitted and consequently leads us to our focus, which is Cap and Trade.  Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring compound created by many processes, including human breathing.  It is used by plants during photosynthesis to produce organic compounds needed for plant growth and development.³ But its property as a greenhouse gas makes it suspect for causing climate change and sea level rise; ultimately resulting in the destruction of lives and property. In order to preserve freedom –to the extent that the green house gas harms humans– emitters should be forced to control their waste just as they are forced to control their own bodily waste; regardless of the cost to the industry or society in general.

In an attempt to force people to control their carbon dioxide waste, Cap and Trade regulations have been proposed.  According to the Center for American Progress, the primary purpose of Cap and Trade is to reduce the rate of global warming.

The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government.

Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.⁴

Cap and Trade regulations are based on the theory that present-day man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing catastrophic global warming.  The regulations intend to lower carbon dioxide emissions to a safe level and at the same time regulate the institution of cleaner energy.  The attainment of those goals would certainly destroy the livelihoods of many people in the fossil fuel industry and their customers.  In order to be sure justice is served by punishing carbon emitters and consumers, the evidence against them must be water tight.  It has been pointed out “that a man is to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, that the burden of proof is properly on those who would send him to the gallows.  This principal testifies to the fact that the consequences of acting on false certainty, no less than the consequences of not acting on real certainty, can be devastating…and they had therefore better make certain that their verdict is correct.^“5

The protection of individual rights requires objective laws and due process.  In order to be guilty of causing sea levels to raise, the evidence against man-made carbon dioxide must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  If carbon dioxide emissions are destroying lives; Who are the victims?  Who is guilty? What is the evidence? What is the counter evidence?  Prof. Robert Carter, of James Cook University in Australia, presented data to the High Court of Justice in England on August 22, 2007 that raises doubt as to whether or not man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global temperatures.

World average ground temperature has not increased for 8 years since 1998 (Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia; Carter, 2007), as recently conceded even by the Hadley Center in a new modeling study (Smith et al., 2007).⁶

Further, a  2008 Boston Globe article acknowledge that “(f)or nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming.”⁷ The fact that global temperatures have been steady now for more than ten years while carbon emissions have continued to increase shows that the effect of man-made carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is less than natural variations in temperature.  There is ample evidence provided by the Heartland Institute, MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, Robert Carter, European Union President, Vaclav Klaus, Willie Soon and others to raise doubt as to the certainty of man-made carbon dioxide leading to catastrophic global warming.  Willie Soon, astrophysicist of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, illustrated how increased carbon dioxide in ice core samples, of the past 650,000 years, lagged behind temperature increases by 600 years.⁸ Even though carbon dioxide is a green house gas, this data shows how difficult it is to distinguish the effects of carbon dioxide from other variables related to Earth’s temperature.  In light of the evidence, Cap and Trade violates the rights of carbon producers and consumers by taking their property and prohibiting action without due process.

Despite the counter evidence, advocates of Cap and Trade determined there was sufficient evidence to prove that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will cause sea levels to rise, drought, disease, tornadoes and hurricanes.  Assuming any part of the aforementioned statement to be true, government has the right and duty to punish the fossil fuel industry and their consumers.  Cap and Trade succeeds in punishing carbon producers through fines and regulation, but this does not bring about justice.  Cap and trade does not defend the rights of the victims.  Guilty companies are allowed to continue producing carbon dioxide as was demonstrated by the implementation of Cap and Trade by the European Union.  Verified emissions have seen a net increase over the first phase of the scheme. For the countries for which data is available (all 27 member states minus Romania, Bulgaria and Malta), emissions increased by 1.9% between 2005 and 2007.⁹ This data shows that Cap and Trade does not prevent pollution from harming people.  Nor does Cap and Trade  relieve or compensate the victims of stormy weather.  For instance, the island nation of Maldives  is planning an evacuation based on the turbulent forecast and they are not receiving restitution for their damaged property.¹⁰ Cap and Trade makes us all victims, not only from polluters, but from government interference in the choices and investments we make.

Cap and Trade regulations go beyond protecting lives and properties from floods and droughts caused by carbon dioxide. The regulations force the flow of money and investment into government favored alternative energy producers.  This regulation of energy production is an assault on a requirement for human life as we know it; the freedom to produce and consume energy.

Freedom and its implementation through the protection of individual rights form the sacred cornerstone of civilization and prosperity.  Any proposition to limit freedom should be thoroughly investigated.  People need to have their rights protected in order to live according to their moral and practical judgment.  Otherwise choices are based on the carrots and sticks offered by anyone willing to initiate force, private or government.  When people’s rights are violated, it distorts their ability to live as rationality dictates.  Then in order to survive ordinary people often make otherwise irrational decisions in order to follow the path of least resistance.  As an example, the New York Times illustrated how profits from one company were irrationally invested into alternative energy companies in order to avoid tax penalties.

In other words, big financial firms traded financing to offset tax liability. So-called tax-equity investors would bankroll a solar or wind project in exchange for a tax shelter, which was effectively pinned to profits. The system worked as long as Congress renewed the federal investment and production tax credits that granted developers a range of incentives, and it was widely viewed as a essential avenue within the renewable energy development community.¹¹

After rights were violated through the forceful redistribution of wealth, new problems arose. Panels of experts and news pundits clambered over pragmatic solutions to the compounding problems created by the unintended consequences of the previous solutions.  The newly proposed solutions involved the application of greater force and intervention, as was illustrated by the same NYT article.

The system, like other schemes crafted by insiders, has crumbled as AIG, Lehman and others have collapsed. The big boys no longer have cash to bankroll projects or the means to pull the profits to get credits, so the tax-equity space has turned into a financial dead zone.

So what now? Experts at a cleantech conference last week offered a simple fix: Figure out how to tap the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the economic stimulus law.

Brook said the government, in setting up the grants, would distort energy markets by favoring wind, solar and other renewable sources. He compared the policy shift under the Obama administration to lawmakers’ subsidizing of mortgages, which led to “enormous unintended consequences.” Tringas countered that he regards the stimulus as a temporary solution until Congress passes a national renewable portfolio standard, which would send much simpler signals to the market, or a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.¹¹

Instead of threatening a few companies with higher taxes, the new solutions threatened to dig into the pockets of every American by forcing them to invest in green energy via various stimulus packages until the government secured the reins of the energy industry through Cap and Trade.

When tax money is used to subsidize popular forms of energy, irrationality spreads like wildfire.  Observe that opportunists eagerly listen for the buzz words surrounding the crusade.  The carrot of “free” money and the stick of regulation favor individuals and organizations that can prove they are “green”.  So businessmen, academics and consumers join the crusade and create an avalanche of impenetrable noise.  University research teams fight over who is greener to obtain favor and “free” grant money.  In the process they leave behind a flood of academic research articles favoring “green” technology and regulations.  Individuals receive “free” money towards the purchase of “green” cars as long as they destroy their old car.  Companies set up shop to produce “green” technology in order to collect “free” money from carbon trading. Under the guidance and force of the authority, businessmen invest in energy sources and products that people can not afford to pay for, but it does not matter.  They maintain existence by subsidies at the expense of someone else’s profits.

Where will the subsidies come from once the carbon producers, who are supporting the endeavor, reduce their emissions to “80 percent below 1990 levels”?  Another pragmatic solution?  Perhaps the government could build coal plants out of urgency or even worse, imagine a nuclear power plant.  Then what regulations would they follow and who would enforce them?  Or maybe human nature, physics and the laws of economics will bend to political power and popular will.  Perhaps subsidies do not encourage irrational choices and given enough time, subsidized alternative energy will become efficient and profitable.

An exercise of reason can demonstrate why subsidized companies can never become profitable as the norm.  Profit is not a requirement for their continued existence.  They exist by political pull.  Since government chooses favorites to subsidize, companies do not compete for efficiency, they compete for favor.  Businessmen turn into lobbyists instead of innovators and their energy is spent seeking favor from congress rather than profit through production and trade.  The situation for the entrepreneur is very difficult.  Especially those who want to develop new energies and technologies without subsidies.  When their neighbors keep prices low by virtue of subsidies it makes it essential for all to seek subsidies or drop out.  Then when excess profits of potential investors are taxed away to pay for the subsidies, it compounds the problem by limiting venture capitalist investment in new technology.  Then, when times get rough businessmen may resort to bribery or corruption.  After all, they are used to asking for favors and permissions in exchange for intellectual support and votes.   An official might be willing to accept money for his troubles as the demand for his favors increases. A little payment could move a person to the front of the “free” money line.

Many well-intentioned people face unnatural dilemmas in their quest for survival when they are forced to act according to the judgment of others.  The regulations and subsidies driving Cap and Trade use government force to direct people’s choices and actions. As an extreme, but all too real example of authoritarian rule, China determined excessive human population to be a threat to human lives.  In order to regulate the population, women were forced to refrain from having more than one child.  In order to comply with the regulation, many women abandoned their moral judgment and killed female and accidental second children in order to make the best of the situation and to avoid punishment.¹² Cap and Trade regulations are not calling for population control and do not result in the irrational killing of babies, but they do call for the regulation of energy and foster irrational investments and business choices on a national scale.

The wind projects that were bankrolled “in exchange for a tax shelter” are an example of the irrationality that is encouraged by government subsidies.  According to Václav Klaus’s calculations, it would take 4,750 wind power plants to replace the Temelín nuclear power plant, “the construction of which would require 8.6 million tons of material…[and] they would create a 665-kilometer-long and 150-meter-high line…”¹³ The majority of the material would likely be composed of Portland Cement based concrete—”the manufacture of which is not only a source of combustion-related CO₂ emissions, but it is also one of the largest sources of industrial process-related emissions in the United States.”¹⁴ In a free market wind projects would exist in their proper place and time, but irrational ideas like replacing mankind’s energy needs—to any significant degree—with windmills is widespread only because of the false signals of monetary success provided by subsidies to green technology and the false signals trumpeted by grant funded academic research supporting “green technology”.  Government subsidies favoring any project, green or otherwise, encourage and allow people to continually make otherwise irrational energy choices by postponing the hardships generally brought about by bad ideas.

Even if man-made carbon dioxide were proven to cause global warming and lead to the destruction lives and property, the regulations and subsidies imposed by Cap and Trade would not solve the problem.  The solution lies with the protection of individual rights, including protection from pollution that destroys lives and property.  The people and organizations suspected of harming others should be brought before a court of law and tried based on the evidence.  If convicted, the guilty party should be forced to change its ways and pay retribution to the victims for damages.  “(T)hat’s how American law used to treat pollution.  But a series of nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that certain levels of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good.  The implication was that if, for example, a few farmers had their property destroyed by passing trains, that was just the price of progress.  These cases allowed private industry to invade the property rights of others and deprived those others of legal recourse.”¹⁵

The nineteenth-century’s attempt to assist the growth of industry by giving them a free pass to destroy or confiscate the property of others should be re-investigated and rejected.  There is no short cut.  The fastest way to prosperity and a clean Earth is through the diligent protection of individual rights.

References

¹http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/overview.html

² Union of Concerned Scientists, The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuel, (10/29/02) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html

^{3 “}Carbon Dioxide,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

⁴ Center for American Progress, Cap and Trade 101 (2008) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html

⁵ Gena Gorlin, The Objective Standard: Doubt vs Certainty (2009) Vol. 4, No.1, p.69

⁶ Stuart Andrew Dimmock and The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court (22 August 2007): Witness Statement: Robert Carter Claim CO/3615/2007 http://www.newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/carterstatement.pdf p.5

⁷ “Where Did Global Warming Go?” Boston Globe (Jan. 6, 2008) http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

⁸“A Critique of Climate Change Science and Policy” Willie Soon and Keith Lockitch, ARC Lecture Series, April 13, 2009. Illustration at 12 minutes into Part 1.

⁹“European Union Emissions Trading Scheme” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

¹⁰“Wanted: A New Home for my Country” New York Times (May 8, 2009)  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/magazine/10MALDIVES-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

¹¹“Wobbly Wind Sector Sets Sights on Stimulus” New York Times (March 30, 2009) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/30/30greenwire-wobbly-wind-sector-sets-sights-on-stimulus-10351.html?pagewanted=1

^12“The Chosen Sex—Chinese Turn to Ultrasound, Scorning Baby Girls for Boys” New York Times (July 21, 1993)  http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/21/us/chosen-sex-special-report-chinese-turn-ultrasound-scorning-baby-girls-for-boys.html?sec=health&spon=&scp=7&sq=china%20baby%20killing&st=cse

¹³Václav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, CEI 2008. P.105

¹⁴U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CO₂ Emissions Profile of the U.S. Cement Industry http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/ghg/hanle.pdf

¹⁵ Ron Paul, “The Revolution” Grand Central Publishing, 2008 p.105

Through an email exchange between Roni Bell Sylvester, of Good Neighbor Law, and Kalee Kreider, spokesperson for Gore, it seems Gore is not interested in debating Dr. Willie Soon and Lord Christopher Monckton. Part of the email exchange follows.

March 13, 2008

Dear Mr. Al Gore,

Please consider this our formal request for you to come debate Dr. Willie Soon, at the Good Neighbor Forum. Many verifiable sources have informed us that you decline such invitations. If in fact this is true, please indulge us by explaining why. If this is not true, please indulge us by clarifying.

Good Neighbor is bias only towards sound science, fact and truth. We are not a militant, political, litigious or activist group. We are instead revolutionary in our drive to soundly educate, educate, educate. Our goal is to present entire pictures, and let the audience decide. We would be honored to clear the day, if you, Mr. Gore, would come debate Dr. Soon. If this date does not accommodate your schedule, please confirm a date and place that would. We’ll make it work! Please let us know immediately.

Thank you,
Roni Bell Sylvester

*Dr. Willie Soon – keynote speaker at the Good Neighbor Forum – was quoted in “Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate” by Oren Dorell – U.S.A. Today, March 10, 2008.

His address “Global Warming 101- Al Gore CO2 Theory” (Good Neighbor Forum 3/15/08) was illuminating. One of Dr. Soon’s colleagues – Lord Christopher Monckton – has invited Mr. Al Gore to debate on many occasions. Mr. Gore has declined. We fail to understand why.

March 26, 2008

Dear Kalee,

After meeting Dr. Willie Soon – and researching his papers further – I fail to see any reason as to why Mr. Gore would not want to clear an hour of his schedule – and openly debate either Dr. Soon or Lord Christopher Monckton. Surely he understands the gravity behind the fact that many non-govenmental agencies and all three candidates running for president are breathlessly dreaming up more policies and treaties -based on an allegedly warming earth.

As you’re well aware, making policy based on errors (I understand scientists have now documented close to 35 in Inconvenient Truth.) will have a horrific, negative impact on everyone in the world.

Many of these policies will destroy resource production in the United States. The ripple affect will be devastating. We’ll no longer be able to stave off world hunger, let alone feed our own poor and hungry.

I believe that if Tipper and Mr. Gore had the factual science on global warming, they’d reverse their positions in a heart beat for a child.

Please pose this request to Mr. Gore directly. For I believe he will be eager to vanquish these speculations surrounding global warming, and do the right thing. Again – we will make Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton available at a location convenient to Mr. Gore – within 48 hours notice.
I look forward to hearing from you soon, with a confirmation day, place and time – for us to present either Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton.

Thank you Kalee. Your attention to this critical matter is greatly appreciated.

Roni Bell Sylvester
www.GoodNeighborLaw.com

March 26, 2008

Thank you again for your invitation.

Mr. Gore is not interested in a debate with either Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton.

As you may know, Lord Monckton and Mr. Gore exchanged op eds in a UK paper.

We are aware of Dr. Soon’s statements.

Thank you so much for reaching out and do accept my apologies that we cannot accept your kind offer.

Cheers, Kalee

The U. S. government commissioned studies to support the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species. Polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades. Everyone likes polar bears, so this is good news. A decision to list would require forecasts that the current upward population trend will reverse. The government studies concluded that polar bear populations would decrease substantially.

Decision makers and the public should expect people who make forecasts to be familiar with the scientific principles of forecasting just as a patient expects his physician to be familiar with the procedures dictated by medical science. Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles. Their paper, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.

They concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting. Indeed, the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles. Given the importance of the forecasts, all principles should be properly applied. In short, the government reports do not provide relevant information for this decision.

Research shows that for issues such as the population of polar bears—situations that are complex and where there is much uncertainty—the best forecast is that things will follow a “random walk;” in effect, this model states that the most recent value is the best forecast for all periods in the future. Because the polar bear population has been increasing over recent decades, however, a continuation of that trend over the short term is possible.

Copies of Armstrong, Green and Soon’s forthcoming paper are available at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com.

Track 1: Paleoclimatology (10:30-12:00pm)

Willie Soon, Ph.D
Chief Science Advisor
Science and Public Policy Institute
An Overview of Global Warming Science

Soon sought to cut through the complex science by titling his presentation “Global Warming 101.” He began speaking of the popular carbon dioxide claims by the IPCC, the same carbon dioxide (hockey-stick) theory by Al Gore that can be shown to be false. He, like many others during the conference, emphasized that carbon dioxide is instead a lag variable in the transitional period from a period of cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures. In place of carbon dioxide, Soon’s research shows that the sun is most likely the dominant driver of recorded Arctic air temperature changes – with an effect factor of at least 10 times that of carbon dioxide. In closing, Soon explained in a humorous metaphor: himself as CO2, William “Refrigerator” Perry as the sun, and Tom Brady as the climate, that CO2 (Dr. Soon) would have little effect on the climate.

Following the conference, Willie Soon was featured along with Bob Carter on the Glenn Beck show. It is available to watch below from YouTube.

Howard Hayden
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of Connecticut, U.S.
The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change

Howard Hayden’s talk began with an analysis of global warming models, saying that the simulations are based on curve-fitting and not on basic physics, or “garbage-in, gospel-out.” Take a closer look at the famous CO2 slide presented by Al Gore and listen to his words, “you can see how well they fit together,” and “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Hayden points to the old adage and fundamental scientific principle: “correlation is not causation.” Further, humans are only responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions, and the biggest source is actually warm water. Astronomical effects can then be examined for warming or cooling the oceans and its relationship with CO2 emissions.

Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
Detection of a 1,500-year Periodicity in a Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction

Loehle began his talk by critiquing the method of temperature reconstruction through tree rings. Given the wide variety of issues not limited to: individual trees not responding to temperature, precipitation and species growth limits, Loehle set out on his global proxy study. Using 18 data sets each 2000 years long (sea sediments, cave stalagmites, pollen, ice, etc.), a corrected global temperature was constructed. This reconstruction under 95% confidence intervals fits with a 1500 year cycle proposed by Singer & Avery that implies the recent warming is merely part of a natural trend.

On January 30, 2008, Scott Armstrong gave a talk presenting his findings to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear”. Click here for full text of the talk. The following are selected excerpts. Full text is available of the paper “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit” by Armstrong, Green, and Soon.

We conducted forecasting audits of two of the nine administrative reports that were prepared in 2007 to “…Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing Decision.” We selected the reports Amstrup et al. and Hunter et al. as they appeared to be the primary forecasting documents. Our concern was to establish whether the reports’ forecasts of the polar bear population over the balance of the 21st Century were the product of scientific procedures.

We found that the authors of both reports made complex sets of assumptions in order to derive their polar bear population forecasts. Critically, the authors assumed on the basis of general circulation model (GCM) forecasts that summer sea ice will diminish in the Arctic over the rest of the 21st Century. Green and Armstrong (2007) audited the procedures used by GCM climate modelers and found that their forecasts were not scientific. Forecasting sea ice conditions adds an additional level of complexity to the problem and the GCMs fail to reproduce actual sea ice conditions even when historical periods are simulated.

Amstrup et al. and Hunter et al. based their forecasts heavily on their judgments (unaided by forecasting principles) of what will happen over the course of the 21st Century. (I realize that the authors used some elaborate mathematical procedures, but the point remains that the procedures did not amount to forecasting methods that had been subject to rigorous scientific testing). Relying on unaided judgment, while appropriate in some circumstances, is at odds with research findings when the situation is complex and uncertain, as it surely is in the case of long term forecasting of the polar bear population. In such situations, experts who are unaided by scientific forecasting methods are unable to make useful predictions. This finding is astonishing to many people.

By TOM KIZZIA (tkizzia@adn.com)

The following are some excerpts from the article discussing Alaska’s decision whether to list polar bears as endangered or not. Click here for the full text available online.

Ken Taylor has had easier jobs than this one. It’s not like the good old days chasing rhinos, climbing into bear dens and wrestling beluga whales in shallow water.

These days, sitting at a desk as deputy commissioner of fish and game, the veteran wildlife biologist has to muster the best science he can find to argue that Alaska’s polar bears are in good shape and need no special protection from hypothetical doomsday scenarios.

This requires Taylor to stand up to the prevailing wisdom about global warming in most of the world’s scientific community and the public — not to mention some pretty strong opinions in his own department.

But Taylor, the Palin administration’s point man on polar bears, argues that the scientific justification simply isn’t there — at least not yet — to declare the polar bear “threatened” and touch off a cascade of effects under the Endangered Species Act. A decision on the bears is expected from the U.S. Department of the Interior in the next few weeks.

“From my perspective, it’s very difficult to put a population on the list that’s healthy, based on a projection 45 years into the future,” Taylor says. “That’s really stretching scientific credibility.”

…

The state also pokes at studies used to predict the future of polar ice, quoting at length from the climate scientists’ own demurrals about margins of error. The chain of predicted problems following from those studies are based on “unsupported conjecture,” the state says.

The state’s critique was based on the work of a consultant, J. Scott Armstrong, a University of Pennsylvania expert on mathematical forecasting who has elsewhere challenged former vice president Al Gore to a $10,000 bet on whether the globe is truly warming.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green are two of the over 400 prominent scientists featured in a Senate Report debunking the scientific “consensus” on global warming. The report was released December 20th, 2007, and can be accessed at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works site. The following is a selected excerpt citing Armstrong’s climate challenge to Al Gore, scientific forecasts versus forecasts by scientists, and the recent study of polar bear prediction methodology.

Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June 2007 over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions. “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.” According to Armstrong, the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72.” Armstrong and Green also critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007. “Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of the Earth in coming decades of the 21st century. Enormous sea level rise is one of the more dramatic forecasts. According to the AP’s Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts’ judgments on what will happen,” Armstrong and Green wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007.

“As shown in our analysis, experts’ forecasts have no validity in situations characterized by high complexity, high uncertainty, and poor feedback. To date we are unaware of any forecasts of sea levels that adhere to proper [scientific] forecasting methodology and our quick search on Google Scholar came up short,” Armstrong and Green explained. “Media outlets should be clear when they are reporting on scientific work and when they are reporting on the opinions held by some scientists. Without scientific support for their forecasting methods, the concerns of scientists should not be used as a basis for public policy,” they concluded. (LINK)

Armstrong and Green also co-authored a November 29, 2007 paper with astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon which fond that polar bear extinction predictions violate “scientific forecasting procedures.” The study analyzed the methodology of key polar bear predictions and found that the a study had “extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data – and data for these years were of doubtful validity.” The study concluded that “experts’ predictions, unaided by evidence-based forecasting procedures, should play no role in this decision [to list polar bear as endangered]. Without scientific forecasts of a substantial decline of the polar bear population and of net benefits from feasible policies arising from listing polar bears, a decision to list polar bears as threatened or endangered would be irresponsible.” (LINK)

A forecasting audit conducted by Scott Armstrong, Kesten Green and Willie Soon has concluded that the government’s administrative reports do not rely on scientific forecasting procedures. Thus, it would be irresponsible to classify polar bears as an endangered species. The authors are seeking additional peer review for their paper.