by James A. Peden
James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" -
Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the
Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier
years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research
and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear
Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying
ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.
As a student, he was
elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and
the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was
President of the Student Section of the American
Institute of Physics.
He was a founding member
of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a
member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in
the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the
prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics.
The results obtained by
himself and his colleagues at the University of
Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the
AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the
Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared
one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments
of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and
Industry in Chicago.
Editor's Introductory Note
Our planet has been slowly warming
since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th
century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum.
Before that came the "Medieval Warm
Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are
Both of these climate phenomena are known to have
occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years
prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere
was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and
scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can
not say that these periods were necessarily "global".
However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an
undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled",
and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the
atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing
"Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global
We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now
agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly
and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming
global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort
of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite
disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany
could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short
time, and we have similar unrest.
Have we become a nation of
Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the
Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric
physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just
The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire
world immediately accepted the idea of
Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that
no one had really taken a close look at the science.
knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate
Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did
not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the
weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.
So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to
happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically
reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the
economies of the world appeared to be more the product of
radical political and environmental activism rather than
science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more
information, armed with a strong academic background in
postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced
mathematics necessary in such a pursuit.
knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many
exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and
understand the foundations of many other sciences. In short, we
read complex scientific articles in many other scientific
disciplines with relative ease and good understanding - like
most folks read comic books.
As our own knowledge of "climate science" grew, so grew our
doubts over the "settled science". What we found was the science
was far from "settled"... in fact it was barely underway.
It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with "all the
world's scientists" apparently having no doubt. Finally, in
December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local
newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be
delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue.
Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our
submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another
"pro-global-warming" feature written by an individual whom, to
the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any
science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear. Still, the
individual had published a number of popular books on popular
environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar
political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers.
had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled
sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time.
Serious science doesn't matter if you have the press in your
In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our
article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the
average reader most likely could not follow or even be
interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by
now that the global warming issue was "settled science". And we
confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a
number of folks who work there personally. They're all good
folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn't
go in their publication.
They also have a right to spin the news
any direction they choose, because that's what freedom of the
press is all about. Seems everyone, both left and right, does it
- and it's almost certain we will be accused of doing the same
here. And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it. We
humans aren't all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that's a
blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food
But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of
the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising
amount of agreement back in return. (We're in contact with a
large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating
back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a
quarter a bottle).
One local friend, in particular, kept
pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a "debate"
with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original
article. This we politely declined, arguing that "debate" cannot
prove or disprove science... science must stand on its own.
But then something unusual happened.
On Dec. 13, 2007, 100
scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon,
the United Nations, requesting they cease
the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping
mankind better prepare for natural disasters.
signature was from the President of the
World Federation of
At last, we were not alone...
We decided to publish the results of our
counter-exploration on the internet - but in a somewhat uniquely
Knowing that most folks aren't geeks, and may
have little understanding of science or math, we're going to attempt
to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along.
Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may
find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of
introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or
physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale.
The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be
able to follow, as well. Smart folks learn faster than most.
What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned
out to be an unreasonably long period of time.
We'll be first examining a "worst case"
scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a
ballpark that will tell us if we need to go further and pull out
long strings of complicated equations, which we don't want to have
to resort to because we're writing for the average layman who is not
a rocket scientist.
This is a valid scientific method
despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that
a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don't have to spend a
lot of time calculating how likely he is to crash while riding it.
Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to
understand was a daunting task.
Below is an example of what "real"
Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis.
Is it any
wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?
Snipped from an
Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth's Surface and an Observational
Determination of Climate Sensitivity
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
Department of Applied Mathematics
University of Washington, Seattle Washington
Let's take a short glance at the
equation at the left, because you're never going to see anything
like it again in this editorial.
To most of you, it is gobbly-gook, but
to a physicist, it is part of a mathematical proof accompanying a
particular study done on the sun's role in Global Warming. What the
authors are explaining is they have found that the total solar
irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978
and it varies on an 11-year cycle by about 0.07%.
So, from solar min
to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth's surface increases at a
rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year
increase in greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next
five to six years in the advancing phase of Solar Cycle 24, almost
0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the
amount of transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming
Don't fret - neither Al Gore nor any of the Popular Journalists can
understand it either.
We'll try to reference most of the material, but if we miss a
credit, or use a photograph someone didn't want to share with the
world (OK, we wonder why the photo was on the web if that were the
case) we'll quickly remove it with our apologies. And let's freely
admit up front that what we offer here is a dissenting opinion, and
surely we have "cherry-picked" the articles of others which are also
contrary to the widely held current beliefs.
A bit of this is original on our part,
but most of it comes from others around the globe. We have tried to
present work from what we believe to be credible, thoroughly
diligent scientists actively engaged in current research.
Let's get started...
We're reminded of an earlier story, which happened back in 1912.
This was the amazing discovery of a skull and jawbone in which was
quickly named the
Piltdown Man and which all the world's
archaeologists immediately accepted as a hitherto unknown form of
early human. It appears no one bothered to examine it closely,
assuming that other scientists had thoroughly investigated and
The hoax wasn't uncovered until 1953, when it was learned
that the skull was that of a modern man and the jaw that of an
orangutan. Seems no one had ever bothered to take a really close
look at the artifact.
Well, folks, it does appear we have a new, 21st Century Piltdown
Man, and this time we know his name.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming"
It's hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but
certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first global
Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist (one who attempts to
interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such
as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring
growth), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which,
unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication.
In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey
stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively
constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing
upward at the dawn of the 20th century. His interpretation was that
man's production of CO2 in the modern age was obviously responsible
for the sudden increase.
It turned out to be one of the biggest
scientific blunders of all time.
Look carefully at the chart above, which is the famous "hockey
Note the horizontal scale is in years, stretching from
the year 1000 to the near present time. The vertical scale is in
degrees Centigrade, and note carefully that it is graded in
increments of 1/10 of a degree. That means the wiggly blue section
in the middle is actually only varying up and down by about a half
of a degree.
The baseline, as noted, is set at the average of the
recorded temperatures from 1961 to 1990.
Also note that only the red
portion represents actual measured temperatures - the rest is based
on the assumption that one can interpret past temperatures from
examining ancient tree rings or ice core samples from centuries-old
ice locked in glaciers. This is, at best, a marriage of apples and
oranges - the handle being somewhat of an educated guess, and the
blade being based on actual measurements using thermometric
recording devices. Sort of like pairing the skull of a human with
the jawbone of an orangutan.
And finally, note that the chart is for
the northern hemisphere only. This chart,
unfortunately, became the foundation for the first report of the
United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in turn provided the summary
information and recommendations to the world's governments.
Anthropogenic Global Warming panic was off to a rocketing start.
However, some folks noticed a couple of significant and fairly well
accepted climatological history facts to be conspicuously missing.
The first was the well-documented "Medieval Warm Period" where
temperatures, at least in Europe as mentioned in our introduction,
were significantly higher.
The second was the "Little Ice Age", a
period in which the temperatures dropped so low the Thames River in
London froze over.
How could this
be an accurate record of the last millennium?
Let's pause and mention that the data above is not "raw" data.
Mann actually used about 70-80 data sets, and in each set he applied
a mathematical analysis known as a principle component analysis
(PCA) which seeks to extract principal, or significant component
information from a widely varying set of raw data.
Along comes Steve McIntyre, a Canadian analyst, who spends two years
of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. Mann's PCA program.
McIntyre subjects Mann's PCA program to a "Monte Carlo" analysis -
which inserts random data sets into the function - and discovered
that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same.
The arm of the "hockey stick" (paleo-record) always came out
In Dr. Mann's case, the rising temperature of the
Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been
completely erased. The hockey stick was broken. Fini. Kaput.
never know whether Mann's work was deliberately contrived to fit
some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical
McIntyre submitted his work to Nature Magazine - since they were
responsible for publishing Mann's flawed research without peer
review in the first place, but they reportedly rejected it, saying
it was "too long". He then shortened it to 500 words, and
re-submitted it, but again it was rejected, this time saying it was
"too mathematical" or words to that effect.
Heaven forbid any
publication calling itself an "International Weekly Journal of
Science" from actually publishing any science that hinged on
mathematics. Let's all push a yard stick into the snow, measure the
snow depth, call ourselves "climate scientists", and get published
in Nature. In the end, McIntyre turned to the internet and its true
freedom of the press, and today he is known to every serious climate
scientist on the planet as the man who broke the hockey stick.
The National Academy of Sciences has found Mann's graph to have
validation skill not significantly different from zero" – i.e., the
graph was useless.
Note the corrected version, below, in which
neither today's temperatures nor the rate of warming are
particularly unusual compared to the historical record. Thus, even
the "global warming" of the 20th century was not even remotely a
cause for the slightest alarm.
It was all "much to do about
The Medieval Warm Period, of which the proponents of
Global Warming don't want you to be aware, was a period in which
agriculture flourished, helping Europe emerge from the Dark Ages.
The Little Ice Age produced crop failures from too-short growing
seasons leading to widespread hunger and even starvation in some
more northern locales.
Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age, agriculture has again
flourished, and most of us hope it lasts quite a while longer. This
is certainly no cause for panic, and a few of us think being
comfortably warm and having plenty to eat is actually good.
And Tom Nelson has a few more graphs the AGW folks don't want you to
Laboratory, it's time to go to work
Next, let's take a look CO2 from an Atmospheric
Physicist's view - straightforward physics that we hope most of you
will be able to follow:
What we commonly call "light" is actually electromagnetic radiation,
physically no different from radio waves, except of different
frequencies and wavelengths. The part we can see is called the
Beyond what we can see in the higher frequencies
(and shorter wavelengths, since they are reciprocal functions) lies
the ultraviolet spectrum. UV light is very penetrating, which is why
one could get sunburned on an overcast day.
Beyond even that are
X-rays, which can penetrate much deeper. On the opposite end of the
visible spectrum lies infra-red... which you can't see, but you can
easily feel, as anyone who has warmed his hands near a hot stove can
testify. It is the infrared portion we commonly refer to as "heat"
And beyond that are the radio and television wavelengths
we all know and love.
The sun is very "bright", and its frequency spectrum is generally
too short to produce much infrared coming down through the
atmosphere. Radiation from the sun penetrates the atmosphere,
strikes the earth, and some of it is absorbed and some is reflected.
The different bandwidths (colors) of reflected light depend on the
material struck, so something green-colored is reflecting the green
portion of the visible spectrum and absorbing the rest.
up the earth, and that's the first part of the story.
All heated bodies emit radiation in the infrared range. This is
called "black body" radiation, because a perfectly black body
reflects no visible light but still emits radiation in a specified
band of wavelengths. Infrared radiation is of a much longer
wavelength, and can be much easier absorbed by certain components in
the atmosphere, causing them to also "heat up".
The warm air around
us is being kept warm partially from black body radiation coming
from the earth itself. Another method of warming is by conduction -
air coming in contact with the heated soil, rocks, trees, buildings,
etc. and being directly warmed by that contact. This may be a bigger
factor than we think, but we're not going to attempt to try to
determine just how much that might be. We'd have to know the total
surface area of every object - down to the smallest blade of grass -
there is on our planet.
We also need to remind ourselves that there
is actually no physical quantity known as "cold". There is only
"heat" and "lack of heat".
Next, lets talk about a scientific process called Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry. It is a method by which we can measure precisely which
wavelengths of radiation a particular gas is capable of absorbing.
In our highly simplified drawing above, a radiation source is beamed
through a glass container containing a gas sample.
As the radiation
passes through, a portion of it is absorbed at particular narrow
bandwidths (often more than one) so the end result are some
"missing" sections of the whole spectrum coming from the source,
which show up as dark lines.
They're missing because they were
absorbed by the sample in the chamber. They are called absorption
lines, or absorption spectra, and when analyzed by a knowledgeable
person, can tell one what the gas or gas mixture is in the sample
chamber based on a catalog of known spectra. It's a wonderful tool
for analyzing unknown gas samples.
Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for
pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in
our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a
black body spectrum as the source.
This is part of the so-called
As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs
infrared radiation (IR)
in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to
wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively.
percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very
generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which
means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being
absorbed by CO2.
In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for
much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than
the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to
If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2,
i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to
absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.
Note: In our original draft, we
talked a bit about relative spacing geometry, to give the reader a
feel for the distance between molecules in the atmosphere. We talked
in (very crude) terms about tacking bottle caps up on a barn wall,
and gave some spacing examples in 2 dimensions for a rough feel of
the subject. One of our readers, Peter J. Morgan - a consulting
engineer from New Zealand - undertook to re-write our simple (and
not technically accurate) description for his 15 year old son. He
was kind enough to send it to us, and we liked it so much we threw
out our South Park estimate and substituted his work instead.
To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually
is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very
tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very
Physicists like to use a unit of measure
Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth
of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A
molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x
10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power
number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55
x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of
mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero
degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure".
You can almost think of all this as just
the normal temperature and pressure around you right now.
calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as
shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an
equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is
approximately 28 Angstroms.
packing, a tetrahedron arrangement is required
To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced
in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms
Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny
molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so
that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter
marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only
380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all
the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every
2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule.
Let's imagine that all the other
molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored
All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced
at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which
is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red
marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the
real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is
halved from what it is at sea level.
A bit more simple math shows that at a
height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that's
143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter
CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2
is called a "trace" gas.
This whole picture we have drawn (with Peter Morgan's help)
illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how
relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and
"heating" the atmosphere.
We know that most of the other IR
radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at
all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space
But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz
Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the
heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively
short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere
can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy
W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of
climate science - doesn't completely agree
We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the
debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all
of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is
We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of
it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.
remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the
two side peaks don't have much energy to capture.
Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of
absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing
upward through the atmosphere.
And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being
captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere,
then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a
In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2
it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based
on present concentrations.
The other "greenhouse gases" such as
methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur
hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and
1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and
aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the
And, since the other components of the
atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially
affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a
totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity.
We could repeat the spectral analysis
and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 (The percentage of
oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up
to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume) and Nitrogen (N2)
which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as
your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up
the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math.
You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen
aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal
greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough,
the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is
technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer has
one of the best comments we've read on this subject:
"Al Gore likes to say that mankind
puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every
What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts
24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas - water
vapor - into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the
same amount every day.
While this does not 'prove' that global
warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by
far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect,
which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."
We can safely ballpark water vapor as
being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect,
with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being
relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller
Side note: Both Oxygen and Nitrogen don't like to live alone. They
prefer to find another and stick together into a diatomic (2 atom)
molecule. Thus the molecular weight of atmospheric oxygen or
nitrogen is approximately twice that of one of them alone.
"approximately", because it takes energy to bind them together, and
mass and energy are equivalent stuff, as our good friend Dr.
Einstein explained with his famous equation E=MC2.
Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because
you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of
so-called "climate scientists", and likely know more than almost all
of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning
out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject.
And for sure, you now
know a lot more than Al Gore
One would think this would be the end of the discussion, that the
laws of physics show us that CO2 isn't even a significant
"greenhouse gas" and certainly the human contribution is
We both now know that CO2 can't possibly
be the evil byproduct all the ballyhoo has been claiming, and in
fact, our biologist friends tell us if we could increase the CO2
content a little more, the planet would be much the richer...
because plants love it, grow much larger with more of it, and we all
like to eat.
CO2 is a non-toxic,
non-polluting, earth-friendly component that really is critical to
our survival. Maybe that's why we laughed so hard when the Popular
Journalist in the Addison Independent insisted that 340, rather than
380 parts per million CO2 was a "target" we should all
shoot for. While you're pulling rabbits out of a hat, could you
please bring me a Pepsi?
OK, if you still are compelled to worry about something, think about
this: The amount of oxygen in our atmosphere is slowly diminishing.
A very long time ago, it was as much as 35% of the atmosphere, and
has been shrinking ever since. We always wondered why those
plant-eating eating dinosaurs had such long necks, and now we know -
they had to reach up for dinner into the really tall trees that once
dotted our oxygen-rich planet.
But let's not worry about that just now, for this current story is
far from over. If you've read this far, you're likely more curious
than most, and probably more intelligent than average.
probably want to know exactly what is causing the warming and
cooling periods on the planet which have been going on for
millennia. Inquiring minds want to know this stuff.
Let's break for a minute, and point out that "Climate Science" is a
catch-all term, like "Sports".
The fellow who takes a daily temperature
reading or measures the snow depth with a stick could call himself a
"Climate Scientist" as much as the person tending the boiler in the
basement could call himself a "Stationary Engineer".
Earth's climate is an enormously complex
subject, spanning not only the "pure" sciences like physics and
chemistry, but many of the "natural sciences", such as oceanography,
meteorology, vulcanology, paleontology, archeology, solar science,
and many others. All scientists aren't of the same quality,
intellect, or natural talent for the trade.
Sloppy scientists are as
common as bad mechanics.
At the top of the pecking order of knowledge needs sit the
fundamental laws of physics - for no matter what others may
determine, the final results must obey the fundamental, established
principles which determine the nature of all elemental matter.
Unfortunately, many "environmental scientists" actually study very
little physics, chemistry or biology in depth.
And many of the "lower" sciences involve
little mathematics beyond introductory calculus. Before the greater
body of scientists out there start beating on us, we'll admit that
very few physicists had a time slot to study organic chemistry and
beyond in college - and the truth of the matter is, there aren't
enough semester hours available for everyone to be cross-trained in
other disciplines to any competent depth.
This makes becoming a
highly skilled "Climate Scientist" very challenging, for this
extremely complex field requires a very large tool kit.
Thus, we trust others to deliver
meaningful results from their specific disciplines. If a geologist
tells us a particular rock is from the
Devonian Period, we have
little choice but to believe him. So in what follows, we're going to
have to trust we have chosen good, solid scientists from other
disciplines as our guide.
In reading "scientific articles" one must also be very alert to use
of the word "if". This is the killer word - the Colt .45 of sloppy
or even deliberately misleading science. "If" the sea level rises 40
feet, then certainly most of Manhattan will be flooded. "If" the
moon falls on Kansas, then certainly wheat prices are going to soar
out of site.
Within a sentence or two, "if" morphs
into "when" and soon everyone is convinced that the moon is
absolutely going to fall on Kansas, it's just a matter of time,
we're all doomed... unless we take immediate action to stop it.
neither of these are very likely to happen, as we shall soon see.
After the hockey stick was accepted virtually overnight without
close examination (like the Piltdown Man), along comes Al Gore, a
long-time "environmentalist", (who made near-failing grades in
science and math in college) who decides to make a movie out of it.
The hockey stick goes up on the big screen, and Gore boards a
mechanical lift with cameras grinding, pointer in hand as he rises
in unison with the blade of the stick which starts growing upward
toward the ceiling. No longer are we talking about tenths of a
degree, the temperature is rising like a puff pastry, and headed
toward the attic.
It all began with the word "if".
hockey stick tip continues to rise (lift starts going upward, the
audience holds its breath) then... and along comes computer
animations of New York flooding, Florida underwater, and poor little
Polar Bears struggling to board the last piece of ice floating in
the open Arctic Sea. (sigh...) It ends with Hurricane Katrina and
Boston almost losing the pennant.
It is Hollywood at its finest, and
the Deacons of La La Land give it an Oscar.
Even the Nobel Committee is impressed,
gives it two thumbs-up and a Nobel Prize to Gore and the other
members of the IPCC for the many lives that will be saved in the
future because of this brilliant early warning. And, there's still
time for we miserable humans to "save" the planet by buying "carbon
offsets" accomplished best by investing in Al Gore's British company
which buys stock in other companies that will benefit from a
world-wide global warming hysteria (keeping a healthy cut) and
making, perhaps, Al Gore the richest former Vice President in
That will buy a lot of SUV's, jets, and
large mansions with mega-electric bills. Everyone wins except the
taxpayer and businessman, who are soon to pay a very heavy price.
So what's really causing the endless cycles of warming and cooling,
if it isn't a constantly changing "Greenhouse Effect" - with man to
blame? Man wasn't producing much CO2 in the past million
years, so he hasn't simply been turning the greenhouse up and down
Just look up - one of the most likely culprits is our old
Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's
climate changes - and Earth's current global warming is a direct
result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.
Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while
studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the
Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's
research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get
5,000-year climate profiles from the mud.
The mud showed the past
Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled
fossils and fish scales.
Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments,
mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land.
profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles - and
the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the
1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.
"Even though the sun is brighter now
than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct
solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past
century's modest warming on its own.
There had to be an
amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of
climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been
discovered," says Patterson.
"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in
2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al.,
have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun
varies ... varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep
space are able to enter our solar system...
These cosmic rays
enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on
"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get
through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet
This is precisely what happened from the middle of the
17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy
input to our atmosphere... was at a minimum and the planet was
stuck in the Little Ice Age."
The Canadian expert concludes,
"CO2 variations show
little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and
even short time scales. Instead, Earth's sea surface
temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with
the sunspot index."
We'll talk about what a "correlation"
means in a couple of minutes.
So what does this all mean? It means, in the simplest of terms, that
it is the Sun which is warming the oceans, not an increased
"Greenhouse Effect" caused by human activity.
And, it might appear that Mother Earth is not the only one suffering
from the Sun's effect. Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and
Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps"
near Mars' south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive
Mmmm... We could go on for endless pages on solar science
and the sun's relationship to global warming, but we're not going to
One of the best summary articles we've
found in simple layman terms is by Kevin Roeten, and you can
read more on below insert:
It's Time to Worry about Global
July 28, 2007
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be
starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two
They say this will likely
lead to unusually cool conditions on Earth. It is also
predicted that this cool period will go much longer than
the normal 11 year cycle, as the Little Ice Age did. The
climate threat is actually cooling, especially to
countries like Canada.
On the northern limit to
agriculture in the world, very little cooling would
likely destroy much of its food crops.
The Little Ice Age - the coldest period in the past 1500
years - corresponded perfectly with the Maunder Minimum.
There was virtually no sunspot activity for almost seven
decades in the Maunder Minimum (per Willie Soon/
Harvard/Astrophysics). It turns out that for those 60-70
years the northern half of our globe was in a deep
The New York harbor froze,
allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten
Island, and the Vikings abandoned Greenland - a once
verdant land that became tundra. In that Little Ice Age,
Finland lost 1/3 of its population and Iceland 1/2.
In the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, the
output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots are
violent storms on the surface of the sun. Marine
productivity and total irradiance match very well with
records that have been kept for centuries on visible
sunspots. Hundreds of studies of sunspots and earthly
climate indicators (tree rings in Russia's Kola
Peninsula, to water levels of the Nile) show exactly the
same thing - that the sun drives climate change.
Even though it has been discovered that the sun is
brighter now than anytime in the past 8000 years, the
increase in solar output was not calculated to be
sufficient to cause all of the past century's modest
warming. But that amplifier was discovered (starting in
2002) with scientific papers from Veizer, Shaviv,
Carslaw, and most recently Svendsmark (Danish National
All these scientists have proven (particularly w/Svendsmark)
that the sun's protective solar wind (from sunspots)
blows away deep-space cosmic rays. With fewer sunspots
there is less solar wind, more cosmic rays, and more
cloud formation from those cosmic rays. More cloud
formation means more cooling effect on the planet.
In a 2003 poll, 2/3 of more than 530 climate scientists
from 27 countries did not believe greenhouse gases were
the main reason for global warming. In fact, overlays of
CO2 variations show little correlation
with earth's climate on long, medium, and even short
time scales. The science is nowhere near settled.
Nigel Weiss (Mathematical Astrophysics/Cambridge)
states that "Variable behavior of the sun is an obvious
He admits that we are now
living in a period of abnormally high solar activity,
and that these hyperactive periods do not last
long(50-100 years), then you get a crash.
boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."
And when the crash occurs,
the Earth can cool dramatically.
Dr. Kukla (Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences)
say he and many others realize that global warming
always precedes an ice age. Each lasts about 100,000
years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called
interglacials. We are in an interglacial now. This
ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in
Earth's orbit around the sun.
relationship is just too clear and consistent to
allow reasonable doubt. It's either that, or climate
drives orbit, and that just doesn't make sense."
No one knows when a
‘crash' will occur, but scientists expect it soon.
Mainly because the sun's polar field is now at its
weakest since measurements began in the 1950's.
A deep crash last occurred
in the 17th century - and it was the Little Ice Age,
"Having a ‘crash'
would certainly allow us to pin down the sun's true
level of influence on the earth's climate,"
concludes Dr. Weiss. "Then we will be able to act on
fact, rather than from fear."
It's not likely greenhouse
‘gassers' will be converted in 12 years. They'll be busy
looking for something humans have done to make it so
warming Solar Cycle is just about over.
The global temperatures have been nominally flat for the past 8
years. If the Solar Scientists are correct, we about to head into a
cooling cycle... which is not good news.
Let's get back to our own science project.
The above chart shows two things we immediately recognize as very
In fact they seem to match each other very well. We would
say they have a strong correlation, and with a little mathematics,
we could compare each one point-by-point on the graph and come up
with a number that would tell us just how well they match each
other, called a correlation coefficient. In fact, a glance at the
above suggests a perfect, 100% correlation, because in fact one is
an exact copy of the other. We know this because we made the chart.
Now suppose the blue one represents changing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere and the red one represents changing global
temperatures over the same time frame. The above is a gross
exaggeration, of course, but we wanted to make sure no one doubted
there is a strong correlation between the two.
Is there any doubt
that CO2 is causing the global temperature to change? Any
doubt at all? None? Zero doubt, right?
Wrong... In fact, the blue line is exactly one pixel on your screen
ahead of the red line. We know that because we made the chart. You
couldn't tell that one was exactly like the other and actually
leading it by one pixel without dragging out a powerful magnifying
device and doing some very careful measurements and some pretty
This was the fundamental mistake that Mann, Al Gore, the
the Nobel Committee, the IPCC, and just about everyone else on the
planet made at the beginning. They immediately assumed, noticing
that CO2 levels and global temperatures had a pretty good
correlation, that CO2 was the culprit, and was causing
global temperatures to rise. In fact, it appears it was just the
opposite: rising global temperatures caused increased CO2
level in the atmosphere.
So where did the increasing CO2 come from? You can't make
CO2 out of Oxygen and Nitrogen... surely you're pulling
Let's do a little simple Chemistry, and figure out the molecular
mass of the different atmospheric constituents. For this we go to
Periodic Table of the Elements, and find the atomic mass of
Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. Let's forget about Argon,
which is about 0.9% of the atmosphere, because it's supposed to be
CO2 that's the evil stuff.
To the nearest round number, Carbon =
12, Nitrogen = 14, Oxygen = 16, and lowly Hydrogen = 1. That's based
on the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom.
The Periodic Table will give a slightly different number, because of
that binding energy (which is a mass equivalent) we talked about
So, what's the approximate molecular mass of the different gasses?
That's simple addition:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
1 +1+16 = 18 amu
14 + 14 = 28 amu
16 + 16 = 32 amu
12 + 16 + 16 = 44 amu
Remember, we're rounding off to the nearest whole number, and
means Atomic Mass Units.
Do you see something significant?
Think like a scientist. Yes, CO2
is by far the heaviest of the major constituents, and the law of
gravity applies to it as well. It sinks to the ground.. in fact,
into the ground, and into the oceans, as well, because CO2
is very water-soluble and that's what puts the fizz in Ginger Ale.
This doesn't happen overnight. In fact, the winds and convection
currents and such keep the air stirred up constantly, so it may take
100-150 years for the CO2 you are exhaling right now to
make it back into mother earth, where most of it is currently locked
Now our puzzle is complete, and we can visualize the whole thing.
The sun heats the earth,
repository of most of the CO2 on the planet.
Some stored CO2 comes
out by a process known as
out-gassing (from the soil) and
the champagne effect (from the oceans). The oceans are by
far the largest source.
Sloppy "scientists" see the
warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in
the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing... and
proceed to blame the increasing temperature on CO2
and mankind as the culprit in a classic knee-jerk reaction.
Funny, any 1st Grader would have told us
that if we had asked them "What makes the earth warm, Susie?" Nobody
ever said science had to be "hard".
You can demonstrate this with a simple
Pour a glass of ginger ale, sit it on the table,
and see how long it takes to go "flat" at room temperature. Now pour
an equal glass into a pan and put it on the stove on low heat, then
time how long it takes to go flat. That's your homework experiment -
to demonstrate that extra heat really releases CO2 a lot
Our satellites are pretty good at measuring overall ocean
temperatures from afar, and CO2 measurements are being
taken daily around the globe. The best results we have been able to
turn up so far is that measurable CO2 increases appear
about 9 months after an upswing in ocean temperatures. The data is
messed up a bit every time a volcano decides to blow its top,
because that's the mother of CO2 producers, bar none.
And a buffalo emits about the same
amount of methane (CH4) as driving your automobile about
8,000 miles - which can combine with O2 in a highly
exothermic reaction (gives off heat) to produce CO2 and
H2O as end products.
One question that has been nagging us here at the Middlebury
Community Network Science Center (our desk) is,
"how in a heck does
one measure the 'global temperature' in the first place"?
asked you what your skin temperature is right now, you'd likely
answer, "Where?" The temperature on your nose is likely far
different from the bottom of your feet or other places you might
With the greater portion of the earth
covered by water, and no floating temperature recording buoys every
mile or so, how can we get an "average"? Well, satellites can
measure ocean temperatures (we'll talk more about that later) but
here in the U.S., for example there are only 1221 U.S. Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) stations, and our math shows that to be
about one every 3,400 square miles.
And from that data, one can cherry-pick (as some have done) to
obtain any result he wants.
For example, here are four records we
cherry-picked from the whole dataset - note the temperatures are in
Fahrenheit, not Centigrade:
Cornwall, Vermont temperatures appear to have slowly
increased during the past century - about 1/2 °F
...time to break out the lifeboats.
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, on the other hand,
had a temperature drop of about 4 °F
Darn, they're stealing our skiers!
Berkley, California really heated up - a whopping 3 °F
Must have been all those protests in the 60's...
Bucyrus, Ohio doesn't seem to have a ticket one way
or the other in the Global Warming Game.
What's that straight line running through the annual average
The linear regression line obtained from the statistical output is
the "best-fitting" straight line that can be drawn through the data.
It is designated by the equation Y = b1X + b0, where X represents
the year, Y represents the predicted temperature anomaly, b1 is the
slope of the line and b0 is the Y intercept of the line.
While we can joke about individual station readings, in fact there
may be something skewing the data.
Berkley, California, for example,
was a sleepy little town back in 1857, when the data starts. Since
that time, it has grown into a much larger city, with many miles of
asphalt roads operating as near-perfect "black body" heat radiators.
This is known as the "urban heat island" effect. Many Climate
Scientists now seriously doubt the accuracy of even the 20th century
section of the hockey stick.
Anthony Watts, writing in ICECAP, gives us a typical example:
This NOAA USHCN climate station of record #415018 in Lampasas,
Texas, was found to be tucked between a building and two parking
lots, one with nearby vehicles. According to the surveyor, it is
right next to the ACE Hardware store on the main street of town.
While likely representative of the temperature for downtown
Lampasas, one wonders how well it measures the climate of the
In her survey, volunteer surveyor Julie K. Stacy noted the
proximity to the building and parking, which will certainly affect Tmin
(the lowest temperature) at night due to IR radiance. Daytime
Tmax is likely affected by the large amount of asphalt and concrete
in the area around the sensor.
You too can check the temperature history near your Grandpappy's
home by accessing the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)
While Al Gore's Oscar and Nobel Prize winning film,
An Inconvenient Truth, has serious students of climate change laughing their heads
off, the British didn't think it was very funny.
The British High
Court has ruled that it cannot be shown to students without first
having a disclaimer that it is "propaganda", instead of a
"documentary". Those Brits just don't seem to have a sense of
humor... or maybe they just think scaring little kids isn't an
Nevertheless, the film makes a good outline for further discussion.
Let's start with those poor little Polar Bears, taking their swim in
the vast, empty Arctic ocean, just before they drown.
Williams probably sums it up best, so we'll just quote her below...
Last March, global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two
polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of
Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global
warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth.
The one he chose, but
didn't offer to pay for right away, turned out to be a photo of a
polar bear and her cub out doing what healthy, happy polar bears do
on a wave-eroded chunk of ice not all that far from shore in the
Beaufort Sea north of Barstow, Alaska.
The picture, wrongly credited to
Dan Crosbie, an ice observer
specialist for the Canadian Ice Service, was actually taken by
Amanda Byrd while she was on a university-related research cruise in
August of 2004, a time of year when the fringe of the Arctic ice cap
Byrd, a marine biology grad student at the time, was gathering
zooplankton for a multi-year study of the Arctic Ocean.
was also on the trip, pilfered the polar bear photo from a shared
computer onboard the Canadian icebreaker where Ms. Byrd downloaded
her snapshots; he saved it in his personal file. Several months
later, Crosbie, who is known as an avid photographer, gave the photo
to the Canadian Ice Service, which then allowed Environment Canada
to use it as an illustration for an online magazine.
Today that photo, with credit given to photographer Dan Crosbie and
the Canadian Ice Service, can be found all over the Internet,
generally with the caption "Two polar bears are stranded on a chunk
of melting ice".
It's a hoax, folks. The bears, which can swim distances of 100 miles
and more, weren't stranded; they were merely taking a break and
watching the boat go by when a lady snapped their picture.
On Feb. 2, 2007 Denis Simard, a representative of
Canada, distributed that lady's photo to 7 media agencies, including
the Associated Press, and timed it to coincide with the release of
the United Nations' major global warming report in Paris, France on
When the press called Simard in Paris to ask if it was his
picture and could they print it, he says,
"I gave them permission because Dan
said it was his picture."
Al Gore saw the picture shortly thereafter and contrived to use it
in a presentation about man-made global warming that he staged at a
conference of human resource executives on March 22, 2007 in
With an enlarged version of Amanda Byrd's polar bear picture on the
screen behind him, Gore said,
"Their habitat is melting… beautiful
animals, literally being forced off the planet. They're in
trouble, got nowhere else to go."
Of course, after those words were spoken, the audience, being under
the impression that polar bears are in imminent danger, gasped with
concern and sympathy for the plight of the poor, pathetic polar bear
population, whose diet, by the way, can include convenient humans,
though attacks, like wolf-human attacks, are said to be rare.
According to Ms. Bryd, when she took the picture, the mother bear
and its cub didn't appear to be in any danger and Denis Simard
seems to have backpedaled when quoted by Ontario's National Post as
saying that you,
"have to keep in mind that the bears
aren't in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground
for 15 minutes.
You know what I mean? This is a
perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have
the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are
going to die with a coke in their hands.
But they were not that far from the
coast, and it was possible for them to swim."
Below is a screen shot from the Greenpeace web site, from a video
(click below image) which drips with the urgency of stopping the "melting" of the Arctic
But look closely: Those are shear lines, where the ice has broken,
not "melted". Melting does not occur in particular paths across the
ice sheet, except when being zapped by aliens in UFO's.
Note closely the comment "more severe storms that wreak havoc on our
home and communities".
It has become most popular to blame global warming (and man) on
virtually everything under the sun. And we mustn't forget to throw
in a non-sequitur related to the "elderly and poor" - whose
beachfront condos will soon be under water, no doubt.
But a new study released in Jan, 2008 by Chunzai Wang, a research
oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Miami Lab and the University of Miami, suggests
that Global warming could actually reduce the number of hurricanes
that hit the United States.
Wong found a link between warming
waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased
vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States And
wind shear - a change in wind speed or direction - makes it hard for
hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive.
His conclusion is,
"Global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making
landfall in the United States."
His study is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The global warming hysterians very typically use photos of perfectly
normal weather phenomena to promote panic (and presumably,
donations to their cause). Particularly popular are videos of
calving glaciers, which break off and create quite a splash when
they hit the water. But any 10-year-old knows that a calving glacier
is a result of a growing, not receding glacier. A receding glacier,
well... recedes... and calves no more.
To make a very long story much shorter, the warmer oceans have
indeed been selectively melting some portions of the Arctic Ice Cap,
but severe storms created large waves which broke up, rather than
melted a substantial portion of the edges of the polar ice.
re-freezes in the winter. And you don't have to panic: the cold
winter of 2007-2008 has returned the arctic ice cap to a handsome
13,000 000 square kilometers - which may melt again in normal summer
There's tons of research going on in this field as
And about those "melting glaciers..."
Strange how our research turned up a completely different story.
found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing
in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt.
St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing
at 3 feet per year.
And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic
Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has
been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million
radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's
ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).
The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in Icy Bay in July 2005.
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF
The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in June 2007 after a recent advance of
the glacier. Note the position of the large waterfall. The glacier
advanced about one-third of a mile sometime between
August 2006 and
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF
Al Gore tells us the Greenland ice cap is thinning, but he doesn't
mention that a newly discovered volcanic "hot spot" may be a
contributor, along with warming on the coast due to warmer waters
coming up the gulf stream.
In general, we found growing glaciers
outpacing melting glaciers by a good margin.
cherry-picking an isolated example to create panic, Al.
Our Oceanography friends tell us that the actual measured rise in
average ocean levels is on the order of 1.6 millimeters (about the
width of a match) annually. There are 25.4 mm in an inch, so in 25
years, the oceans might be up about 1.5 inches or so if the trend
In a thousand years, it will be up a whopping 64 inches,
and everyone but the NBA is clearly in serious trouble.
Al Gore, on the other hand, recently said the problem is much worse
than previously thought, and the Polar Ice Cap will be completely
gone in 5 years.
We're going to hold you to that, Albert. We wonder if anyone has
ever had a Nobel Prize taken back...
If you make a quick knee-jerk assumption, you'd probably conclude
that something has to be melting somewhere to cause such a steady
rise, however miniscule. But there's another principle of physics at
work here called thermal expansion. When you heat an object, it gets
Since the oceans have been slowly warming over the past few
centuries, the volume of the oceans has also been increasing a tiny
bit, and that can possibly account for most, if not all, of the 1 mm
per year rise in the average sea level.
Old glaciers are a wonderful repository of historical information,
because past samples of earth's atmosphere are locked up in them.
Coral heads and Sargasso Sea sediments also leave Carbon 14 and
Oxygen 18 clues to the past temperature of the earth.
We all agree that the historical CO2
curves and the temperatures curves closely match each other.
when we look closely at the CO2 and temperature data
found locked in ancient ice core samples, we find that increases in
CO2 are actually following increases in temperature and
that CO2 doesn't cause warming - warming causes CO2
Summary - Exactly what have we learned here?
The "Greenhouse Effect" is a
natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet
would be uninhabitable.
Modest Global Warming, at least
up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
CO2 is not a significant
greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water
Man's contribution to Greenhouse
Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the
recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
Solar Activity appears to be the
principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex
ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local
CO2 is a useful trace gas in the
atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having
more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global
Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better
crops to feed the expanding population.
CO2 is not causing global
warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all
reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and
the future cannot influence the past.
Nothing happening in the climate
today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many
times in the past and will likely happen again in the
The UN IPCC has corrupted the
"reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food
scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They
do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science
as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In
empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first,
then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion
which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while
falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
Polar Bear populations are not
endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at
almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered
is an effort to gain political control of their habitat...
particularly the North Slope oil fields.
There is no demonstrated causal
relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global
warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any
Observed glacial retreats in
certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of
years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings
in global temperatures.
Greenland is shown to be an
island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps
dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal
activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
The Antarctic Ice cover is
currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and
periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well
with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the
The Global Warming Panic was
triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been
thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately
nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and
politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
Scientists who "deny" the hoax
are often threatened with loss of funding or even their
The correlation between solar
activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists
are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of
pending global cooling.
Biofuel hysteria is already
having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and
prices, and current technologies for biofuel production
consume more energy than the fuels produce.
Global Warming Hysteria is
potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
In short, there is no "climate
crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.
How do we end
We've heard several anecdotal examples of local children becoming
frightened after seeing Al Gore's movie, and maybe that's why we're
so angry with him.
To counter that, the British High Court has ruled
that the film, if shown in their schools, must be preceded by a
disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary.. and a specific
list of 9 distinct inaccuracies must be included in the warning. The
9 have since expanded to 35, and
we heartily encourage you to
examine each and every one.
From our point of view, we're watching a world gone mad, with
everyone hustling to get a piece of the action. Politicians, radical
environmentalists, and even mainstream businesses are scrambling to
appear as "green" as they can - and reap of piece of the financial
action sure to follow as funds are diverted from normal paths in a
headlong race to save the planet.
Some of this is actually good.
We do need to cut down on our use of
petroleum fuels, because they're becoming more and more expensive to
find and recover - and as Will Rogers said,
"They're making more people every
day, but they aren't making any more dirt."
Green is good, and we here at the
Community Network try very hard to be good stewards of the
We recycle everything, drive 2nd-hand cars that get
high gas mileage, and even had only one offspring - thus gaining one
whole human lifetime of "carbon credits". It is overpopulation,
after all, that is using up our resources at an ever-increasing
So the Great Global Warming Hoax could have a unintended
positive side in energy conservation, and even Hitler made the
trains run on time in Nazi Germany.
But is it wise to achieve a noble goal by deceit, information spin,
bad science, dire predictions, censorship, and
outright terrorism of
our children? We think not...
We understand that those who jumped on the Global Bandwagon early on
are now in a difficult position. Many are now searching for a way to
back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.
Others are continuing to miss-quote all the bad "science" on the
subject, desperate to perpetuate what appears now to be only a myth.
The Popular Journalists would starve if folks stopped reading their
global hysteria books, and if folks stopped believing that Global
Warming is man-made, they'll have to find some new themes on
catastrophic events and sell us on the idea that we're to blame.
A recent U.S. Senate report quotes 400+ scientists who originally
bought the global warming hoax, and are now confessing that they
don't believe in it any more.
Yes, Sen. Inhofe, who sponsored the
report is a minority Republican on the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, and the liberal Democrats aren't about
to believe anything he says, but we'll give him credit for being the
first member of Congress to take a stand against the growing
hysteria. It's a mess, and we're in it up to our cultural necks.
What is potentially more alarming, is that some of the early
knee-jerk scientists that were so quick to jump on the climate panic
bandwagon are now fighting desperately to save their careers by
deliberately producing falsified data in a last-ditch effort to
support their individual research and save their professional
In our own research, we uncovered some "data" in which
a CO2 curve from an ice core study was conveniently moved
some 83 years down the time scale, so the desired "results" could be
It's much too lengthy to discuss here, but if you'd like
to delve into the subject in depth, we've posted
the full paper by
Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland.
Powerful political forces are also hard at work, attempting to
preserve what we currently perceive as to be a myth by
government-enforced "education". The State of California is
attempting to require the myth to be taught in all of their public
schools. Given the general level of science literacy of most public
school teachers, particularly in the lower grades, we wonder from
where the course materials would come.
We're betting Greenpeace
would be more than happy to supply the "information". We're also
betting that Vermont could soon follow suit. We don't call ourselves
the Green Mountain State for nothing.
The "debate" now seems to be settled down between two opposing
political forces, commonly labeled "liberal" and "conservative", and
two separate scientific "methods" of proving their points. Here they
are, in a nutshell:
All of the empirical evidence now favors the "conservatives", who
apply the laws of physics and chemistry to known data and conclude
that anthropogenic global warming can't be happening. The coup de
grace on the conservative side is the fact that CO2 is
lagging temperature, and thus, they say, what happens next month
can't possibly be affecting what is happening today. We tend to
favor this logic.
The "liberals", on the other hand, have turned to computer modeling
to "prove" the world is about to come to an end. Models can and in
fact are being constructed which can prove anything you want. By
tweaking the data, you can even make them come out with the opposite
"Modeling" is a perfect tool for perpetuating a scam like
this, because they have absolutely no basis in factual science, yet
are easy to sell to the unsuspecting public who thinks they are a
part of legitimate research process. Unfortunately, there is much
"model tweaking" (OK, "faking" is the better word) being done by
the Hysterians to "prove" the sky is falling.
This is commonly known
as Junk Science. We saw one climate model in which the temperature
was held constant while the CO2 concentration was
arbitrarily doubled, a brilliant erasure of the laws of physics.
The ultimate "judge" at present is the press. Fortunately for the
Junk Scientists, the scientifically illiterate reporters and other
popular journalists are quick to grab anything that calls for
change, change, change (does that have a familiar ring to it?).
Since most of the press, ranging from our local folks to the New
York Times, tend to showcase the Junk Science and suppress the
empirical results, the equally science illiterate public gets only
one side of the story, and they, in turn, quickly organize mass
demonstrations calling for change, change, change. Presumably, if
you march enough protest signs around the country, the Laws of
Physics will bend to your will.
There's Big Bucks to be made promoting the hoax.
Take a look at this
a "green" directory site:
We now have a 34 ACRE NURSERY SITE underway in Maine
with a wood and solar heated greenhouse for tree seedling
This will enable us to grow out millions of seedlings
for transplanting to deforested areas across the north woods.
If you would like to DIRECTLY OFFSET YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT there is
a PAYPAL DONATION button under the picture.
ANY AMOUNT will help
further the CO2 Reduction project!!
Editors Note: We have an even better offer: For every 10 bucks you
send us, we will hold our breath for one full minute before exhaling
the CO2 into the atmosphere. This "carbon offset" will
make you feel good about driving your Hummer to the next Global
"Climate Science" has become the new gold mine for research funding.
Any funding grant application today had better have the words
"Global Warming" in it somewhere if you want to rise to the top of
the pile when the money is handed out. Spending on "climate
research" has skyrocketed from $175 million to $5 billion annually,
and you'd better make sure your "results" support AGW, or the
Leprechaun will get away and your pot of gold will vanish.
Review" has generally become a laugh, as the Hoaxters now all review
each other's work, and the cash register keeps ringing. A huge
proportion of the "climate scientists" now at work weren't even
interested in the subject a few years ago, and it's a bandwagon
playing the new pop tune of "Ca-Ching, Ca-Ching".
The Hoaxters now
control many of the science journals, and are suppressing any honest
research that exposes what John Coleman, founder of The Weather
Channel, has called "the greatest scam in history". In writing this
editorial, we of course automatically become "deniers", the heathens
of physics who haven't converted to the new religion of global
It's now 100% honorable to fake your results, because keeping
a paycheck is a most honorable pursuit.
It's now critically
important to keep the hoax afloat, for if the public ever finds out
global warming is a purely natural phenomenon, the money will dry up
in a heartbeat, because no government wants to waste money on
something man can't possibly change.
Recently, several NASA scientists have resigned in protest of the
bureaucrats who run the agency supporting Junk Science in order to
secure more funding for climate-related satellite systems and other
And scientists who speak out too loudly against the hoax
have actually been fired for crossing paths with the politicians
promoting Junk Science, as recently happened to University of
Washington climate scientist Mark Albright, who was dismissed from
his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after
exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade
Seems Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels claimed the Cascade
glaciers were melting, and Albright, in charge of the glacier
studies, said they weren't. Nickels had enough clout to get Albright
bounced from his job.
Our public schools seem to be highly infected with what the serious
climate scientists are now calling the new "religious cult" of
anthropogenic global warming hysteria.
No longer are teachers
inviting their students to explore climate change - now they are
being instructed to,
"make a nice poster showing how you can stop
This appears to be primarily an American
Graduate schools in technology report their classes are
mostly filled with foreign students, and U.S. Public High School
students are the most science and mathematics illiterate of all
"Education" majors (our future teachers) have
the lowest SAT scores of any college major so we are stuck in a
catch 22 situation where the least qualified to teach anyone about
anything are churning out mostly scientifically illiterate students
who then go off to college and emerge with thousands of degrees in
Art History with no job in their field waiting for them when they
Let's all lie to our children while we're at it
The Down-To-Earth Guide to Global Warming
by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon
This children's book "explains" the Global Warming Hoax to
English-speaking children everywhere (click below image). Here's a textbook case (pun
intended) of how to pull the wool over their eyes.
Simply insert a fraudulent graph clearly showing Climate Temperature
to be following CO2 levels, in the same manner as Al
Gore. This is easily done by swapping the actual CO2 and
Temperature graphs, as shown below.
Then finish with the statement:
"What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising CO2
to rising temperature scientists have discovered the
link between greenhouse-gas pollution and global
Of course, the actual data shows just the opposite - that CO2
lags, not leads temperature, and thus "proving" just the opposite.
Don't worry, the parents aren't smart enough to detect the lie,
The battle now seems to have settled down as a war between two major
The "mainstream media" who controls the printed
word on paper (such as the book above) and the talking heads on TV
are generally supporting the Junk Science.
The Internet, last
bastion of free speech and the only significant outlet for empirical
science, is slowly gaining ground exposing the scam, but so far it's
pretty much an imbalanced situation, since the Junk Scientists also
know how to build web sites and blogs and are doing their best to
spread the panic in that media as well.
For example Richard S. Lindzen, in his paper at the 2005 Yale Center
for Globalization conference clearly points to one particular
pro-hoax web site calling itself "Real Climate" which tells us that
it is all about "climate science from climate scientists", featuring
among others, the now universally discredited work of Michael Mann
and others who were too quick to become his overnight followers.
site isn't actually run by "scientists", it's actually run by
Environmental Media Services, which specializes in spreading
environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand
to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear
"This website appears to constitute a
support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism
of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is
then repeated by the reassured believers.
A collection of stock
responses for believers is also featured on Gristmill, where the
Popular Journalists and mainstream media can quickly obtain a
handbook for perpetuating the scam, and become instant experts on
In the end, time will be the final judge.
If the ice caps don't melt
in our lifetimes (or in 5 years, as Al Gore is predicting) then
future historians are going to have a rich trove of material on how
the entire world went bonkers over a global temperature shift of a
few tenths of a degree attributed to our "carbon footprint".
York floods during the last game of the World Series, then the
Computer Modeling has won out over the Laws of Physics and at least
we'll be able to make new models which will cure cancer, end
starvation, stop wars, and lower our taxes all at the same time.
Most of the best research has been performed in the last 3 years,
and strongly supports the notion that CO2 plays little role in
You will probably not be allowed to find this out,
except in places like this. The IPCC policy writers were actually
instructed to ignore the most recent and likely best information in
their earlier reports to the world's governments, and of course the
Popular Journalists continue to quote the older, now debunked
"science" that led to the panic in the first place. It has turned
real nasty, and it is our strong feeling that much skullduggery is
One of the hallmarks of American politics is to tell a lie often
enough until it magically becomes the truth.
The corruption of the
UN IPCC would make another long treatise in itself, but we won't go
there in this particular piece, because we don't want to scare our
children into thinking that scandals in the UN were making unwitting
liars out of their teachers.
Remember, the UN IPCC reports are the
very foundation of the Global Warming Hysterians' arguments. That's
where they get the "all the world's climate scientists now agree"
baloney. Scientists who disagree with the policy writers (who are
largely bureaucrats appointed by their own governments) are ignored
in the reports, a well known phenomenon.
And several IPCC scientists
are currently raising Cain with the IPCC policy writers to stop
using their name as "agreeing" with the Junk Science IPCC reports. (The IPCC claims that all of their member scientists and contributors
approve of their phony reports, and as best we can determine at the
present time, a majority probably does not).
Alec Rawls probably sums up the IPCC corruption best:
"What I found
interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud
is, omitting the competing explanation from the models completely,
while pretending that they are using their models to distinguish
between anthropogenic and natural warming.
These people are going to
hang on to their power grab until the bitter end."
And we might be wrong.
We're pledged to good science, without any
political or environmental agenda producing hasty conclusions, and
this ball game is still in play. We've done an enormous amount of
homework, and reached a preliminary opinion on the matter, and are
intent on remaining politically independent in this regard. If we're
wrong, delaying immediate action will only hasten doomsday.
right, then nature will take its course as it always has, and normal
life will go on by adapting to climate change, rather than freaking
out over a pending climate catastrophe.
That's what the Scientists'
letter to the U.N. was all about.
What can you do to further expose this Global Hoax seemingly being
spread to promote radical political and environmental issues? You
could start by sending the URL of this page to your friends and
other "regular" folks who have no environmental ax to grind and are
only seeking some realistic appraisal of the situation.
has now been "peer reviewed" by dozens of highly qualified
scientists in fields related to climate change, and there has been
no fault found in our physics, chemistry, or mathematics to date. It
has already "gone viral" world-wide, and has been read in 83 foreign
countries at last check.
We invite Comments, but flames and rants and other childish stuff
will be deleted and you won't even get the courtesy of a reply.
do welcome comment from intelligent folk who have something original
to say, but please don't bombard us with cut-and-paste
cherry-picking from climate hysteria sites on the internet, because
trust us, we've already read all that.
We admire your tenacity in reading this all the way to the end.
James A. Peden
Editor's Post Script - "it isn't over 'till it's over....."
New information continues to emerge...
...so we'll keep the issue flowing here in this
"Post Script" section
As expected, we've received several tons of email from both
scientists and non-scientists alike, all thanking us for speaking
out on this issue. So far, not a single dissenting voice has crossed
our desk, which really surprised us, because we were expecting a
mass flamethrower attack from the Global Warming Hysterics.
even attempt to post all of the comments, but we'll show you a
couple of our favorites:
"Even for scientists your article is more convincing than many of
the truly peer-reviewed science papers, and I have sent it to a
number of my meteorologist and climatologist friends...."
(Whose past affiliations include the Joint Institute for Laboratory
Astrophysics, the University of Colorado Department of Astrogeophysics, Tycho Technology, and the UCLA Physics Department.
He was also NOAA's public face for Technology Transfer, giving
testimony to the U.S. Senate Science and Technology Committee.)
"Here is probably the best internet posting anywhere in the world
for laypeople who want to know the truth about "global warming". Our
thanks to Jim Peden for permission to post it here."
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Also, we received an unsolicited and previously unpublished short
manuscript from Dan Pangburn, a Professional Engineer, who, like us,
became curious and conducted his own independent study of the global
warming situation. This paper is unusual because it contains
original new plots created by Dan from raw data sources.
different analysis, he arrived at the same conclusion, and you may
read his paper by
We've just been made aware of a summary article by
Sutherland that is almost a mirror image of our own, except he
published it on 10/29/07, several months before ours. When two
people come up with virtually the exact same set of issues, data,
and conclusions, it is often called a Conspiracy.
When they do it
completely independent of one another, it is sometimes called Due
Diligence. Please read Dr. Sutherland's fascinating synopsis (briefer than ours but very complete) by
Open your wallets, folks
Sen. Barbara Boxer has a full-court press
going for adoption of the
Climate Security Act–S. 2191
(Lieberman-Warner) global warming cap-and-trade bill. This will
impose a $1.2 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years according
to the Congressional Budget Office.
Some say Sen. Boxer is crazy. We
think she's crazy like a fox.
What better way to secretly increase
entitlement spending than by promoting a cure for a nonexistent
If you'd like to read a very interesting essay on the
sociological implications of AGW hysteria, please
click HERE. This was a graduate
essay written by Chad Cooper, who has really done his
In exploring many avenues of the AGW
propaganda machine, he surmises,
"The propaganda techniques
discussed are tactical methods to convince the world
population that humans are the primary cause of global
warming. The strategic goal, however, is to incorporate as
many of these methods into the daily life of the average
citizen, so that he accepts the theory as fact. From new
articles, t-shirts, laundry detergent, political speeches,
movies, and appliances to car insurance commercials, AGW has
permeated modern society to the point where there is no
See something missing?
Look at the "official" list of "greenhouse
gases" below, as offered by our boy geniuses on the UN IPCC. Golly,
it appears that Water Vapor isn't among the list - the UN IPCC says
its role is "not well understood", even though it is responsible for
about 95% of the "greenhouse effect.
Using their logic, we could
argue that our human population is all-male - because females are
"not well understood" - and thus it is proper to remove any mention
of them in our list of genders on the planet.
Also note that only
"anthropogenic" sources are listed - no mention of the minor fact
that the earth itself is the major contributor of CO2. Hey, natural
stuff doesn't count (when you're trying to create panic.)
Don't you sense just a tiny bit of
a con job?
"Global Mourning" a mental disorder?
Our opening question, "Have we
become a nation of overnight loonies?" may turn out to be a truth
spoken in jest.
Some very serious mental health researchers are now
examining a new mental disorder called "Solastalgia", a form of
Traumatic Stress Disorder caused by a palpable sense of dislocation
and loss that people feel when they perceive changes to their local
environment as harmful. An expanded discussion of this is available
So, next time a Global Warming Hysteric starts
chanting about polar bears and Disney World floods, please be kind
and bear in mind that they may be half a bubble off plumb.
"Deniers" have a sense of humor
Come to think of it, 50% of the population is, by definition, below
average intelligence. And according to the National Institutes of
Health, 21% are mentally ill.
That might explain the polar bear suits and Kumbaya singing to stop
global warming. We think the t-shirt at right is cooler than a polar
bear suit (click on image).
And no, we don't make any money by sending you there, darn it.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any funnier...
Al Gore now combines Amway and Evangelism to produce a series of
"training sessions" which in turn will produce an army of "climate
Climate Project is non-profit volunteer group that focuses
on his now totally-discredited movie,
An Inconvenient Truth and his
follow-up presentations. Gore will lead the participants through the
junk science and format of his presentation, so they can repeat it
in their communities
His reported advertising budget? $300,000,000.00.
Each participant makes a commitment to give the presentation at
least 10 times. No mention of a pink Cadillac as a prize for the
You're going to love this. Another chunk of ice has broken off the
ice shelf around the Antarctic Peninsula.
The Hysterians quickly
jumped on it, claiming it was another effect of "global warming"
("caused by man" is now clearly understood in the GW Looney Community). But surprise, surprise, there are active volcanoes in the same
area. NASA has published an image showing the surface temperatures
in Antarctica (on the left, below).
This panicked the GW Looneys
so much they quickly posted the caution that "a number of (unnamed)
editors have objected to the NASA image" and imploring their
religious following, "Please do not use this image".
This is the original NASA image, showing the assorted hot spots due
to underground thermal activity around the Antarctic continent and
the associated temperature trends.
Note that he highest temperatures are around the Antarctic Peninsula
and the Ross Ice shelf, where most of the Antarctic "melting" has
This is the same image being distributed around the
Looney Bin, with suitable admonition against its use.
The data used for the NASA image were collected by the
High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensors that were flown on
several National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Please do not use it...
Indeed. It drives yet another nail into the
Anthropogenic Global Warming Coffin.
Help, I've fallen and I can't get up...
Since late 2001, the trend of global surface temperatures has been
We now know with reasonable confidence that solar
intensity and world ocean currents are the primary temperature
moderators... since CO2 levels have continued to rise
throughout this past decade of cooling.
This cooling hopefully won't
last forever, of course, because the climate is always changing.
London Brits asking for more CO2
6 April 2008
Seems you can never satisfy the British.
We've received an urgent request for more of our fine U.S. - made CO2
Robert Felix (left) and
Hans Schreuder (right) in London.
Coming your way, fellows...
Ah, those UN IPCC Climate "Models"
We received an email asking why we didn't believe the UN IPCC models
predicting world climate meltdown in a few years were good models.
We sent back a list of items the UN Climate Yo-Yos deliberately omit
from their models
And the sketch above, just in case he still didn't get it.
The 2008 International Climate Conference in New York City wrapped
up, and interestingly enough, it appears they also came to the exact
same conclusion as we had more than a month earlier, with 500
Their final Declaration is repeated below.
from the global warming fanatics was predictable - the scientists
gathered in New York were all heathens financed by the big oil
companies, who refuse to convert to the new religion founded by Al
Gore (after he flunked out of divinity school).
The president of
the World Federation of Scientists is actually an
alien (financed by
the big oil companies) and sent down to destroy the world by
preventing us from stopping global warming.
Incidentally, we were asked to become co-signers of the declaration
below, to which we obliged with the greatest humility, in view of
the truly outstanding group of climate scientists and other
presenters at the conference.
The Manhattan Declaration
from the 2008 International Climate
Mar 05, 2008
"Global warming" is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields,
economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times
Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International
Conference on Climate Change
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by
the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will,
independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2)
is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognizing that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic
change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science
community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus'
among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly
regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2
emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable
impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such
policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the
ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby
increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2
emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and
resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions
from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in
the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations
on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing
emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity
of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any
attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert
the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the
real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend:
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but
misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to
reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York
4 March 2008