By Joe Soucheray
Pioneer Press
It is axiomatic that in any New York Times story about any aspect of the weather, it is only a matter of time before the reporter - they appear to be operating from a set of instructions - inserts the required admonition about global warming, which is now more frequently called climate change and might soon return to being called global cooling.
I mention the New York Times only because it is so reliably predictable.
In any event, there was another example Tuesday, when the Times reported that the tornado season seems to be intensifying, but no one seems to know why. I knew that by being patient, I would reach the big bugaboo, and I did: “Though climate scientists believe climate change will contribute to increasingly severe weather, including hurricanes and thunderstorms, there is little consensus about it how may affect tornadoes.’’
But the sentence clearly implies that it will, it being subsection C of paragraph 2B of the template, which states, “in any story about the weather, an effort must be made to introduce the idea that climate change is responsible for any and all weather events.’’
The same story quoted Howard Bluestein, a meteorology professor at the University of Oklahoma, who said a tough month of tornadoes “isn’t a sign that the world is about to end.’’
And another fellow, Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist for the National Weather Service, in accounting for an increase in reporting such a strong outbreak of tornadoes in April, said, “We seem to know about every single tree branch knocked down. We have eyes everywhere, and we have radar and satellite. It would be very difficult for a tornado to sneak through unnoticed.’’
Bingo.
Carbin appears to get it.
Let’s put it another way. Tornadoes are appearing in places where people did not used to be. How do we know how many tornadoes used to race across empty landscapes? But now that there are housing developments in those once-empty landscapes, it certainly stands to reason we will hear about them and see them, too, because everybody captures everything these days on cellphones.
In May 2008, a twister took out much of a development in Hugo, a new development west of Highway 61, not the old hamlet of Hugo, east of Highway 61. It was a dreadful event, harmful and frightening. It did not occur to me, or possibly even to scientists, that what is called climate change might have been responsible for that tornado. No, it was late spring, tornado season, and here came one barreling down on a cluster of homes that hadn’t been there 10 years previously, maybe even five years previously.
I am probably not alone when I am driving on the interstate and see a gathering of new homes on a yonder rural hill and think to myself, “Tornado targets.’’
There are more of us now, more of us living where we didn’t used to live, and the tornado doesn’t care that we have just built new homes, and a playground, and a ball field and a new school.
In the spring of 1958, I was driving around the north side of White Bear Lake when I saw what I now know to be a funnel cloud. It was over the White Bear Yacht Club golf course. I said to my dad, “Hey, what’s that?’’
He peered over me out the passenger window and said, “Judas Priest!’’
And floored it to get safely away. When we got around the lake, there were people standing out in their yards with binoculars to watch that big funnel turn darker and darker, gaining momentum. It took out some barns and maybe some animals.
When that happens again, as it did in that neck of the woods in 2008, it will take out more than barns and animals, because we are living where we didn’t used to live and the tornado does not take that into consideration.
By Noel Sheppard
"For those of you who are confused [about global warming], you’re forgiven. It’s my fault.”
So hysterically said retired Minneapolis anchorman Don Shelby during a speech at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, Tuesday:
After spending 32 years in front of the camera as an anchorman and investigative reporter for WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, Don Shelby wanted to apologize to people about climate change. [...]
Shelby was speaking at the University of Minnesota Duluth on Tuesday on what he called “The most important story since journalism began - global climate change.” His speech served as the kick-off for a two-day sustainability fair sponsored by UMD’s Office of Sustainability.
The TV newsman’s mea culpa about having misreported climate change came after of years of treating the story the same as he would any other, requiring the views of two opposing parties, Shelby told the packed lecture hall of the chemistry building.
But, he said, climate change is not a pro or con issue; it’s a scientific fact. And journalists who work to “balance” a story present an inaccurate picture when they give equal weight to sources promulgating inaccurate facts.
“If I report a story on abuse of children, I don’t go out and interview an abuser on the up-side of child abuse,” he said as an example of how an effort to balance can go too far.
Yes, global temperatures rising by about one degree Celsius in the past 160 years as we came out of a solar minimum, radically increased the population, and replaced grasslands and forests with cities, skyscrapers, concrete and asphalt is akin to abusing a child.
There’s therefore only one side to the story as to why the planet got hotter, and reporting the other far more logical one is like letting a child-abuser explain why beating kids is okay.
This is what passes as critical thinking in journalism today. And this man was speaking to a group of college students filling their minds with the same lack of objectivity.
Scarier still, for 32 years Shelby reported to the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul on television and radio. Makes you wonder what other biases the Emmy Award-winning “newsman” has been sharing all those years if he’s willing to stand up in front of an audience and claim he was misrepresenting this issue.
Having never lived in Minnesota and therefore not the slightest bit familiar with Shelby, I have no idea what his political leanings are beyond this bizarre mea culpa concerning global warming.
------
Last hope for alarmists: “an extreme climatic event like a national draught”
An “extreme climatic event” William K. Reilly is looking forward to?
Climate change alarmists are getting desperate these days. Global warming has almost disappeared from the political agenda, and ordinary citizens have lost interest in the scaremongering propaganda offered by the warmists. The republican alarmist (yes there is one), former EPA chief William K. Reilly does not find many reasons for optimism, but in the interview published by German Der Spiegel he clings to one last hope:
“American politics can turn on a dime,” he says. “If our economy woes become smaller and we then face an extreme climatic event like a national draught, things might change.”
Read the entire interview here.
PS
One wonders what kind of persons Reilly and his likes really are? To openly hope for a national disaster in order to promote (bogus) climate change policy is both immoral and contemptible. H/T Marc Morano
By Hank Campbell, Science 2.0
Hank Campbell
You might think that those who are skeptical (or downright intransigent) on a CO2 basis for global warming are bigger wasters of energy or greater polluters than those who accept climate science.
Not so. Skeptics are just as green. Their reasons may simply be different.
In 2008, Ed Maibach and colleagues did a survey (Who’s ‘Greener’, Democrats Or Republicans?) and found that percentages of people concerned about our climate future to varying degrees were about what you would expect; on the fringes were outright deniers that pollution could be bad on one side and on the other side were people who believe anything advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists tell them. In the middle were varying levels of skepticism and acceptance and that has likely gone up and down as issues like ClimateGate (and UN claims about 50 million people in a global warming Exodus by 2010) came to the fore or new studies showing melting ice came around.
So why wouldn’t skeptics be less environmentally considerate? As discussed in Were Republicans Smart All Along? They Accept Climate Change But Not Global Warming disbelieving a CO2 basis for global warming does not mean lack of concern about the environment, it’s more that climate scientists and journalists chose to become cheerleaders for global warming - and that was never going to win hearts and minds when it came to good policy decisions. Skeptics still care, they just aren’t convinced the other side is caring about the right thing.
Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience recently caught up with Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, who helped with the 2008 survey, and he noted all of the groups, from outright skeptics to true believers, conserved energy at the same rates.
“The dismissive are conserving energy and saving energy as much as anyone else,” Leiserowitz told LiveScience. “It’s about thrift, conservation. These are core American values.”
Why? To some, conserving energy is saving money, to some, it is dislike of OPEC dictators who control much of the oil supply. It doesn’t matter why, the fact is they do it. Insisting that people not only act the right way but truly believe is religion, not public policy, so doing the right thing is good enough.
Environmental advocacy groups have shrilly insisted they are being outspent and that is why they have lost ground publicly. That was never true, not even close, but it brought in donations because activists wanted to believe it, much like they want to believe they’re the only ones who conserve energy or care about nature. Matthew Nisbet, associate professor of communication at American University in Washington DC but more famous here for his staunch advocacy of framing science (cynical opposition to our belief that people out there are smart, they just don’t like being deceived or manipulated) did a study and showed that not only were advocacy groups not outspent, even the more generous agreement to accept environmental group statements for how much they spent on global warming ad campaigns was well beyond what detractors were able to mobilize.
Instead of lamenting a money cause for skepticism, the onus is back on climate science to rein in silly kooks who think they are trying to help and become trusted guides for the public once again. But, no, the commentary on Nisbet’s work from the usual suspects is that it wasn’t peer-reviewed (it’s an analysis of money spent - yet the Himalayas are melting passed IPCC ‘peer review’ just fine, even though it was a comment from a magazine article printed as fact) while Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress.org panics and claims opponents of climate legislation outspent environmentalists 8 to 1 and thinks that because other true believers also don’t like Nisbet’s analysis it must be flawed. Logical fallacies make lousy science.
I’m not a big fan of his framing stance but Nisbet is right on this one. Because climate change is an issue that impacts all of us, it has to be acted on by all of us. So why people use less energy or tackle charge is basically irrelevant - stopping terrorism, saving money, caring about Sierra Club - what is important is that they do.
By Alan Caruba
Earth Day was established in 1970 and millions of Americans and others around the world have been steadily brainwashed to embrace the impression that environmentalism is about protecting the Earth, but when Greens talk among themselves, it is a very different story and a frightening one at that.
The massive propaganda program that supports the Green agenda is impressive in its scope. Its locus is the United Nations whose Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was revealed in 2009 to be a complete hoax based on the manipulation of computer models to predict a warming due to excess carbon dioxide. There never was any threat from CO2. It is a gas that is vital to the growth of all vegetation on Earth. It represents a very minor, even miniscule, part of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Nothing, however, deters the Green agenda and, since the first Earth Day, it has penetrated the nation’s schools and, of course, its politics, deliberately deterring and thwarting access to the nation’s vast reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas; the greatest such reserves in the world! It is a drag on business development. It is the ultimate nanny state seeking to alter people’s lifestyles through coercion, legislation, and persuasion.
What most people are unaware of is the fascistic hatred of mankind that underlies the philosophic basis of environmentalism.
Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept, was quoted by William Tuck in “Progress and Privilege”, 1982, as saying “The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals, but absolutely limited by the state.” Lamont Cole, an ecologist, has said, “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”
Stewart Brand, writing in the Whole Earth Catalog, wrote, “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion - guilt-free at last!”
I doubt most people are wishing for a disaster and, when they occur such as the earthquakes in Haiti and in Japan, the first instinct of decent people worldwide is to mobilize to help those affected. This is a very human reaction, but it is not a Green one.
Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists characterized capitalism, saying “Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process...Capitalism is destroying the earth.”
It is no coincidence that Earth Day is also the birthday of Vladimir Illich Lenin, the founder of the former Soviet Union and devotee of Karl Marx, the creator of Communism. The Communist revolution worldwide led to the murder of an estimated one hundred million throughout the last century.
At the heart of environmentalism, aside from its wish for far fewer humans, is a hatred of capitalism. The failures of communism and socialism everywhere attest to the way state control of all aspects of life is ignored by Greens.
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, said, “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, hold dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wildness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settle land.”
Thus, agriculture, the key to civilization, is decried as harming the Earth and all manner of business and industrial enterprises, dependent on the provision of energy, is regarded as evil.
Major environmental organizations, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club to name just two, oppose the use of coal, oil, and natural gas to provide energy.
So much of what environmentalism preaches and claims in its propaganda is utterly false, but telling lies is part and parcel of the Green message.
Timothy Wirth, a former U.S. Senator (D-CO) said, “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Virtually everything being advocated by the Obama administration represents this willingness to take action and tell lies about the nation’s need for energy, with the exception of the worst ways of producing it, wind, solar, and biofuels. Even before gasoline prices climbed to new highs, negatively affecting all aspects of life in America, Dr. Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, was advocating higher prices.
The few quotes cited here do not begin to illuminate the horrors that environmentalism would visit on mankind or the nihilistic view it holds, but they represent a far greater body of Green writings and statements over the years that indicate the extent of the threat it poses to humanity.
A deluge of environmental propaganda will precede Earth Day, April 22, 2011. It should be seen as a warning to all who believe in the Creator and all who wish to advance a world at peace, one in which humanity benefits from trade, prosperity, and modern technology worldwide.
By Henry Payne, Planet Gore
God has a sense of humor.
Earth Week kicked off in the Midwest with temperatures plunging 20 degrees below normal, record snowfalls in Chicago and two to four inches here in Metro Detroit.
While their reporters shivered through “winter is back” reports, MSM outlets from NBC ("Green Week") to the Detroit Free Press ("Green Leaders Awards") launched a week of green propaganda leading up to Earth Day on Friday with scare stores about melting snow, drought, and tips for how to live a moral green life and prevent Armageddon.
Local Detroit communities scrambled to send out salt trucks while warning that carbon-spewing trucks are destroying the planet, and local schools prepared to scare the kiddies with the movie Carbon Nation - assuming schools didn’t have a snow day.
Temperatures are expected to remain below normal this week - as is enthusiasm for the Left’s plans to remake the economy to prevent catastrophic warming.
By Paul Driessen
President Obama and environmentalists often say America should follow Europe’s lead on energy, climate and economic matters. Recent events suggest that we should listen more attentively to the Europeans.
Two brutal winters have awakened Europe to the fact that global temperatures stopped rising in 1998 - and that frigid days and nights pose far graver dangers to the elderly and poor than warm weather and moderate global warming.
Germany and the Netherlands were gripped by near-record lows this past winter. People suffered frostbite and some froze to death in Poland and Russia. Barely twelve months after its Meteorological Office said the 2009-10 winter was the coldest in three decades, Britain endured its coldest December-January since 1683. Because the United Kingdom’s ultra green energy policies have driven heating costs into the stratosphere, British pensioners rode buses or spent all day in libraries to stay warm, then shivered all night in their apartments. Tens of thousands risked hypothermia, trying to control costs by bundling up and turning the heat down or off. Many died.
In Wales, a third of all children live in low-income households, and a quarter of all households were in “fuel poverty” - forced to spend at least 10% of their income on heating. Many parents had to choose between keeping their children warm and providing them with nourishing meals, welfare workers said. Many Welsh children couldn’t sleep at night because of the cold, damaging their health and grades.
This isn’t proof that the world is entering a global cooling cycle. But the absence of sunspots is the most prolonged in a century, and scientists say the reduced solar activity is reminiscent of the Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when the Northern Hemisphere suffered through the coldest weather, worst storms and shortest growing seasons of the Little Ice Age.
The frigid weather, freezing families, record budget deficits, soaring unemployment - and complete failure of global warming computer models to predict anything other than “a warmer than normal winter” - have caused a meltdown in Europe’s longstanding climate and energy policies.
In fact, many Europeans increasingly recognize that businesses, hospitals and especially poor families absolutely need reliable, affordable energy – which wind and solar cannot provide. United Kingdom manufacturers say “green energy” policies and increased penalties for using fossil fuels are raising their costs to intolerable levels, especially for energy-intensive industries. Manufacturing is “reaching a tipping point,” they say, “where companies that are internationally mobile will say ‘enough is enough,’” and simply move to Asia. Millions of jobs are on the line.
“If we go alone to 30% [renewable energy],” European Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger emphasized, “you will have a faster process of de-industrialization in Europe. We need industry, and industry means CO2 emissions.” Tougher climate and renewable targets will force industries to move to Asia, he added, and steel will likely be one of the first casualties. Europe can no longer afford to “prop up” renewable energy industries. Many countries are listening.
The British government is looking into cutting subsidies, feed-in tariffs and other incentives for solar projects, to prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. Wind turbines, small hydroelectric plants and biomass projects are also on the block, as the government attempts to revive the UK economy, raise its competitiveness, radically reduce rising debt burdens, and chart a more economically and politically realistic course.
The Netherlands reduced its renewable energy targets and slashed wind subsidies by 60% ($3.5 billion). More shocking, even in the wake of Fukushima, the Dutch are talking of approving their first new nuclear power plant in 40 years, because they can no longer afford to pay exorbitant fees for minimal amounts of renewable electricity (that is well below theoretically “rated” or “capacity” output). Poland is racing to develop shale gas, using hydraulic fracturing methods developed by American companies to unlock trillions of cubic feet of methane for its homes and factories. Exploratory drilling is also underway, or about to begin, in Britain, Germany and other countries, as engineers evaluate the extent and economics of developing their own vast shale gas deposits.
In Slovakia, the government stopped issuing solar licenses barely six months after launching its program. After unaffordable subsidies were sharply reduced, new solar installations in the Czech Republic fell 76% (from 2800 MW in 2009 to 400 MW in 2010); in Spain they plummeted 98% (from 2800 MW to 69 MW between 2008 and 2009). Private investments in these government-supported programs also cratered.
France and other countries are taking similar steps, while also expanding coal-based electricity, to replace nuclear. “Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy, as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback,” London Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly observed. “Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates.” Or worse.
A new report from Scotland found that renewable energy kills 3.7 traditional jobs for every “green” job it creates. Wind power mandates also cost British energy consumers an extra $1.8 billion in higher electricity costs in 2009-2010. Rebellion is in the air, and belief in dangerous manmade global warming has plummeted.
Europe also drills for oil, onshore and off its coasts, especially in the North Sea. However, despite these changes in the Europe he extols so often, President Obama says this is America’s “Sputnik moment.” He wants the United States to “invest” in “the Apollo projects of our time” - spending countless billions of additional taxpayer dollars to “stimulate” pricey renewable energy, high-speed rail, climate change “prevention” and other projects. His April 13 budget speech reiterated this commitment.
This is precisely the kind of government-as-usual our nation can no longer afford: politicians and bureaucrats deciding which energy technologies, industries and companies win - and which ones lose - on the basis of politics, rather than science, economics, technology or common sense.
It is time to follow Europe’s lead. We may not be able to do anything about the weather or climate. But we can, and must, implement policies that ensure we have the technology, money, jobs and energy to adapt to whatever climate and weather changes might come.
Developing America’s vast domestic oil, natural gas, coal, shale gas and uranium deposits will generate millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in critically needed royalty and tax revenue. We must ensure that our energy policies generate revenues and create jobs - instead of requiring constant taxpayer subsidies and destroying two to four traditional jobs for every “green” job that government “creates.” We need to do that, and can do it without hurting the environmental values we all cherish.
Any policies that shackle our ability to follow this new Europe-advised course will severely harm our nation’s future - and shackle blue-collar jobs, poor families and minority opportunities worst of all.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
By Alan Caruba
Anyone who has been paying any attention to the environmental movement has got to have concluded it is insane.
• While the United States stands poised on defaulting on its ever-growing debt - the highest in the nation’s history;
• While wars and insurrections are waged in the Middle East, across northern Africa, and in the Ivory Coast;
• While Japan struggles to deal with a major earthquake and nuclear plant meltdown;
• While Islam wages terrorism worldwide, and
• While European nations attempt to deal with their own financial crisis, the environmentalists - Greens - engage in the most absurd frauds and nonsense since the Dark Ages.
In news from the United Nations - a misnomer if ever there was one - Bolivia is proposing a UN treaty that will give “Mother Earth” the same rights as accorded to human beings. It has just passed a domestic law that grants these rights to bugs, trees, and all other natural things in its own country.
According to the Bolivian proposal, humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” the Earth in ways that threaten the “well-being and existence of many beings” such as malaria-bearing mosquitoes, lice and ticks that spread disease, trees that provide timber for shelter and countless other uses, venomous snakes, and every other creature upon which we depend for food---beef, chickens, and fish, to name just three.
The Bolivian law, if successful, will end the extraction of all natural resources in that nation, thus effectively plunging it into insolvency. That is a definition of insanity. It is also a description of the United States of America where access to its vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil is being systematically denied by the government.
This is occurring as the Environmental Protection Agency continues its effort to declare carbon dioxide (CO2) a “pollutant” that must be regulated, despite the fact that is vital to all life on Earth.
In America, there has been a resurgence of bed bugs, formerly controlled by DDT. The EPA recently awarded $550,000 in grants to the University of Missouri, Texas A&M University, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Rutgers University, and the Michigan Department of Community Health, for bed bug “education, outreach, and environmental justice departments.” So, instead of authorizing the use of a pesticide to rid us all of bed bugs, it wants to “educate” us to live with them. That’s insane.
The U.S. Forest Service scientists will hire field crews “to gather information on the conditions of forests from approximately 1,000 sites in five western states, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington”, “for a comprehensive study on the health of trees in urban areas.” No mention of the millions this will waste, but it is heralded as part of Obama’s “America’s Great Outdoors Initiative.”
At the same time, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has just announced that the department will spend $1 million in “cost-sharing funding for children’s programs in 18 States and Puerto Rico, furthering USDA’s commitment to connect young people around the country with America’s great outdoors.” Why?
A rational nation that’s $14 trillion in debt, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, would not do such things, but the United States does while its President calls for higher taxes. And why not? The Obama administration spent up to $200 million to promote Obamacare. While that was happening, 26 States joined in demanding its repeal and a U.S. federal court judge declared it unconstitutional.
As the nation struggles to reverse an unsustainable trend toward financial doom, Greens are trumpeting an “Extended Producer Responsibility” program to achieve “waste reduction and increased recycling” that would make manufacturers “liable for the cost of recycling TVs and other electronics at the end of their useful lives” and alter the way they package goods. This is not the manufacturer’s responsibility and will increase the cost of everything everyone purchases.
On Earth Day, everyone will be exhorted to engage in “A billion acts of Green” and to purchase “Green” products, all of which cost more than everything else one purchases in the normal course of everyday life.
We are only now recovering from the greatest fraud of the modern era, “global warming.” The United States wasted an estimated $50 billion on so-called scientific research, all of which existed for the purpose of advancing this hoax. It is rarely mentioned any more except for its fraudulent new name, “climate change.”
As we approach April 22nd, designated “Earth Day”, it would be well to recall that it is the birthday of Vladimir Illich Lenin, a devotee of Karl Marx and a man who plunged Russia into more than seventy years of Communism until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Environmentalism, worldwide and in the United States of America, is devoted to the collapse of every scientific and technological advance of the past century, along with the capitalist system that made them possible.
By John O’Sullivan, Suite 101
Science professor, a former global warming believer now denier, publishes groundbreaking paper to prove carbon dioxide cools, not warms our atmosphere.
Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”
Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption on the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations into the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”
Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.
In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying years.
Global Warming Scare is “Anti-science”
In an astonishing personal U-turn Nahle has taken on the task of demonstrating that the demonization of CO2 was premised on a faulty hypothesis. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson. Anderson is one of eight coauthors of the controversial book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ that also falsifies the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Nasif says, “Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture.”
Nasif says, “To my surprise, I found that the hypothesis was flawed and that the AGW proponents were inventing variables and constants. As I starting to apply the correct data and algorithms, I was realizing that the whole hypothesis was wrong from the physics standpoint.”
The 60-year-old’s career is now firmly focused on climate-related research; in 2010 he began working on Climate Change and Biodiversity at the Superior School of Biology, University Juarez of the State of Durango. Nahle is so converted in his thinking that he now calls the greenhouse gas theory, “antiscience” and “pseudoscience.”
Other science specialists in the fields of atmospheric physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology as well as mathematicians, have also been looking with a critical eye on the controversies in climate science ans publishing papers going against the views of establishment climatology, a science largely comprised of generalists not specialist scientists, according to Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball. Ball concurs with such skeptic criticisms adding that it “raises questions about who is qualified to provide oversight.”
As scepticism about global warming increases I asked Nasif why it has taken so long for more independent scientists to speak out. He replied, “In my experience, other scientists follow the mainstream about the greenhouse effect (GHE) without examining its basis. If they would examine the issue in more depth like I did, they would realize that it is not true; the GHE just doesn’t exist.”
Carbon Dioxide Shown to Have no Potential to Trap Heat
Professor Nahle’s paper addresses very technical matters such as “emissivity” and “overlapping absorption bands” within atmospheric gases which many scientists, as well as non-scientists, have little real understanding. So I asked Nasif to give an explanation.
“Emissivity is a coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energy. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs.”
Nasif’s study looked at how well gases in our atmosphere convert energy from the sun to raise temperatures on the ground. He went on, “In the case of carbon dioxide, its emissivity consists of its potential to emit the energy absorbed because it is not a primary source of heat.”
Nasif added, “the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide is equal to its emissivity coefficient, the gas can only absorb a limited amount of the energy received from other sources and then emit a limited amount of the energy absorbed.” In simple terms this means carbon dioxide cannot ‘store’ more energy than it emits.
Poor Climate Calculations Overestimated Warming Effect
This new study, in effect, refutes the claims of climate doomsaying researchers who say such an overlapping trapping effect ‘enhances’ the emissivity of the carbon dioxide and/or the water vapor in the air (clouds, etc.).
Such energy received is then swiftly lost to where it goes most easily i.e. to the colder regions of the upper atmosphere and then to outer space. This means heat does not get ‘trapped’ in the absorption bands of the gases and the atmosphere cannot thereby act as a ‘blanket’ to keep the earth’s surface warm.
In fact, in total contradiction of global warming orthodoxy, Nahle’s research demonstrates that, under these conditions, a negative emissivity occurs; a self absorption that must be subtracted from the addition of total emissivities of the two, three, four, or more gases. Thus the only effect CO2 can have on global climate is to reduce temperatures, not increase them.
Read more at Suite101. Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by ‘Coolant’ Carbon Dioxide