“Dangerous Climate Change is Coming”
by Christopher Monckton | April 30, 2009

The Scare:
Two papers published in Nature in spring 2009 say that the rise in global temperature is unlikely to remain below the politically-defined threshold of “dangerous climate change”, if global economic growth continues at its current pace. The papers are based on computer simulations of the climate response to greenhouse-gas emissions.

Policymakers have adopted a goal of keeping the global rise in mean surface temperatures to no more than 2 C° (3.6 F°) above pre-industrial levels.

Myles Allen et al. simulate the mean “global warming” that would result from a given cumulative carbon emission. They conclude that a trillion tonnes of carbon emissions (about 3.7 trillion tonnes of CO2, roughly half of which has already been emitted) produces a “most likely” warming of 2 C° (3.6 F°).

Malte Meinshausen et al. take a slightly different tack by modelling the probability of global temperature rises across a range of greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios. They find that total emissions from 2000 to 2050 of about 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2 yields a 50% probability of exceeding 2 C° warming by the end of the 21st century. Emissions for the last seven years were almost 250 gigatonnes, implying that even without future increases in CO2 emissions the total emissions from 2000-2050 may well exceed this 50% probability.

The Truth:
Nature is one of many “scientific” journals that have openly declared an editorial prejudice in favor of a frankly alarmist viewpoint on the climate.

Clark Hoyt, Esq., Public Editor and Readers’ Representative, The New York Times.

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

Deliberate misrepresentation in a front-page article by Andrew Revkin on Friday, 24 April, 2009

The New York Times guidelines for staff writers on “Journalistic Ethics” begin by stating the principles that all journalists should respect: impartiality and neutrality; integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Andrew Revkin’s front-page article on Friday, 24 April, 2009, falsely alleging that a coalition of energy corporations had for many years acted like tobacco corporations, misrepresenting advice from its own scientists about the supposed threat of “global warming,” offends grievously against all of these principles.

Gore: The Arctic is warming at an unprecedented rate. New research, which draws upon recently declassified data collected by U.S. nuclear submarines traveling under the Arctic ice cap for the last 50 years, has given us, for the first time, a three-dimensional view of the ice cap, and researchers at the Naval Postgraduate School have told us that the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.

Yet again, rent-seeking “scientists” bidding for wealth, power, and glory at taxpayers’ expense have used computer games divorced from observed reality as the basis for making absurd, extravagant, scientifically-baseless, and now rather tired and shop-worn predictions that climatic doom will ensue unless the world shuts down two-thirds of its economic activity.

To save the planet, burn more CO2.

EARTH DAY approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.

The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.

Speaking Truth to "Wind" Power 


Submission to Legislative Committee on Bill 150
by Michael Trebilcock ~ April 7, 2009

Michael Trebilcock, a renowned economist and friend of the environment, will be appearing at the Ontario legislature tonight, arguing against the Ontario government's proposed Green Energy Act. For the many good reason he outlines, this green act is anything but green. 

His excellent presentation appears below.

By Bjorn Lomborg | April 15, 2009

ACCORDING to conventional wisdom, we are voraciously using the world's resources and living way beyond Earth's means. This narrative of decline and pessimism underlies much of today's environmental discourse and is often formulated in a simple fashion: by 2030, we will need two planets to sustain us, owing to higher living standards and population growth. If everyone managed to live at American living standards today, we would need almost five planets. But this received wisdom is fundamentally wrong.

Environmental campaigners use the so-called ecological footprint - how much area each one of us requires from the planet - to make their point.

The scare: For years, scientists, politicians, journalists, academics, and schoolteachers have been fabricating lurid and imaginative disaster stories about the supposed environmental impact of anthropogenic “global warming”. There have been apocalyptic predictions about soaring temperatures, Arctic ice-melt, sea-level rise, hurricanes, extreme-weather events of all kinds, species extinction, etc., etc. These scare stories have little basis in scientific reality: they are pure inventions, usually designed to attract funding or increase circulation.

Written by Farmer Steve

 

I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.

Here is why.

Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.

The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.

I asked “what is the source of this money”?

Carbon caps or levies will throttle taxpayers

Last summer, China and the developing world announced the price for their cooperation on a global-warming treaty: up to 1% of the developed world's gross domestic product. For the U.S., this would mean sending $140 billion a year to China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba, among other countries. This is in addition to the $28 billion we already distribute each year in foreign aid.

For a U.S. family of four, China's demand comes to nearly $1,900 in yearly taxes. And that's just the beginning.

The tenor of international climate negotiations has emboldened the Indian government to claim in a February filing with the United Nations that the West owes it billions of dollars in compensation for climate change. These payments, it said, should be mandatory and not "subject to decisions of developed country governments and legislatures."

The Hon. Representative Ed Markey, and The Hon. Representative Joe Barton,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Gentlemen,

Questions raised by the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment

I am most grateful for the fairness and good humor with which Chairman Markey conducted the hearing of 26 March 2009 on the question of adaptation to “global warming”. The calibre, commitment, and concern of Hon. Gentleladies and Gentlemen on both sides of the House were self-evident.

However, my notes of the hearing indicate that certain national and international executive agencies may have materially, serially, seriously, and successfully misled your Congress for several years about the imagined extent, anthropogenic component, and effects of “global warming”.

Madam Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on Climate Change. My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry.

Politicians who bow to the demands of the world's climate alarmists have long sought various means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the measures they have proposed have been rather mundane, focusing primarily on reducing emissions associated with one's household activities and transportation habits. For example, we have been encouraged to replace our incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient ones. We've also been asked to participate in municipal recycling programs, to drive less, to car pool or to utilize public transportation. But the "rules of the road" will soon be become much more stringent, and you and I may be asked - if not mandated by law - to make an unprecedented lifestyle change that could dramatically curtail one of our most cherished personal freedoms, all in the name of "saving the planet."

Analysis for today's policy makers.

Summary for Policy Makers

The Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council was established in the Iowa legislative session of 2007 and charged “with identifying opportunities for Iowa to respond to the challenge of global climate change by becoming more energy efficient and energy independent while spurring economic growth.” In December of 2008, the Advisory Council submitted a proposal to Governor Chet Culver designed to meet the following requirements (as directed under Iowa Code section 455B.851):

Early in 2009, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions,” by Susan Solomon of NOAA and three colleagues. This lurid paper said that “the severity of damaging, human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility,” and that “the climate change that takes place due to increases in CO2 concentration is largely irreversible for 1000 years after emissions stop.”

The Solomon paper talks of “irreversible impacts,” such as dry-season reductions in rainfall leading to “dustbowl” conditions in several regions, and “inexorable sea-level rise” of “several meters.” However, the paper is entirely predicated on two implicit but false assumptions: that the computer modeling on which all of its conclusions are based is competent to predict the state of the climate a millennium or more in the future; and that the effect of atmospheric carbon-dioxide enrichment on global mean surface temperatures will be substantial.

 

This collection of essays is in direct response to, and sound refutation of, the Susan Solomon paper. It is intended for state and federal policy makers and the public which elects them. No public policy, reardless of how small or large in scope, could wisely be based on the Solomon paper, or any similary speculative claims. 

The scare: In March 2009, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, director of a grand-sounding pressure-group called the “Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research”, said that “global warming” of 7 Fahrenheit degrees would wipe out all but 1 billion of Earth’s 7 billion human population.

Mr. Schellnhuber said, “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science, because at last we have stabilized something – namely the estimate of the carrying capacity of the planet – fewer than 1 billion people.” The planet, of course, is somehow currently carrying seven times that number. The previous month, Dr. James Hansen of NASA had predicted that “global warming” would raise sea level by 75 meters – equivalent to 246 feet.

Lord Christopher Monckton issues global warming debate challenge to Senator John Kerry (D-Mass).