Why are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, particularly the relatively small amount emitted by human activity, the sole focus of most climate change debates?  In scientific circles, CO2 is referred to as a ‘trace gas’ that, for hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume.  Even among the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG), CO2 accounts for less that 4%, with water vapour being by far the most significant GHG.  CO2 is clearly a miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and cause climate change. Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel, which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.

At 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume, CO2 levels are now, in a geologic sense, at their lowest in 600 million years. For example, during the exceptionally cold Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today.  At other times, warm temperatures occurred when CO2 levels were high. During this period, there was no consistent correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. When, in more recent millennia, a correlation appears evident, temperature changes before CO2.  Aside from forecasts of still primitive computer models, modern climatological research consistently shows that there is no scientific justification for the CO2/climate hysteria that has so gripped mass media and politicians.  Read more here.

Step right up folks and get your tickets to the greatest scam on Earth as we pay homage to those much-maligned scientists, geologists, climate researchers and marginalized Global Warming Skeptics the world over who refuse to be silenced by the skeptiphobics who would still the voices of reason. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys observe the spectacle with amazement and see how mainstream television and newspapers have put P. T. Barnum and James Anthony Bailey, two of the world’s greatest circus hucksters, to shame with their involvement in promoting the Great Global Warming Charade. Undoubtedly even the Ringling Brothers in their wildest imaginings could not have envisioned how the Clown Princes of media, eco-zealotry, self-interested politicians and nose-in-the-ozone academia have created the shameful alliance we have seen develop across the world today.

It will be interesting to see what happens when people wake up to realize they’ve been had. What will the old media say when they discover their little plan didn’t work? What will the politicians do to hide their gullibility? And who will take ownership of the mess left behind? There is a price to be paid for duplicitous conduct whether practiced by mindless media, fear mongering skeptiphobics or buffoons in the political circus. That price is the eventual loss of power, prestige and profit. What I find gratifying, is that we have a ringside seat to the greatest show on Earth. See full story here.

Russians are bracing for temperatures of as low as minus 55 degrees Celsius (minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit) in Siberia as Russia’s emergencies ministry warns on Wednesday of its impending dangers in the coming weeks. Government agencies were placed on high alert, reports AFP. The ministry ordered local administration officials to prepare for the extreme chill expected to last until Jan. 21. The ministry warned that the unusually cold weather could kill, cause frost-bite, conk heaters and cut electricity to homes, disrupt transport, increase the rate of car accidents and even destroy buildings across Siberia.

The freezing temperatures have already caused overloading of electricity grids and power interruptions in the regions of Irkutsk and Tomsk because of overused heaters in homes. Two people have already died and more than 30 others hospitalized with forst-bite in Irkutsk, reports AFP citing state media. Bloomberg reports that worst hit will be the Siberian region of Evenkiya, while neighbor Georgia, whose climate is subtropical, already plunged to as low as minus 35 degrees Celsius. Lake Paliastomi in the western Georgia froze for the first time in 50 years, reports Rustavi-2 television.

Average temperatures in large Siberian cities in January usually range between minus 15 degrees Celsius and minus 39 degrees Celsius, according to data from weatherbase.com. Schools have been closed down in at least four regions because of the cold. See report here.

As much as a third of the warming trend in arctic regions is caused by “dirty snow,” not by greenhouse gases, UC Irvine researchers say, a finding that could have implications for pollution control efforts across the Northern Hemisphere. In a study published in a science journal in June, 2007, climate researcher Charlie Zender and his team say that Arctic snow is being darkened by soot from tailpipe exhaust, smokestacks and forest fires.

Because darker surfaces absorb more heat from sunshine, Zender said, soot is making a significant contribution to Arctic warming, which is melting permafrost, increasing spring runoff and causing a variety of woes for the people who live in these regions. Better control of pollution sources that emit large amounts of soot - coal-fired power plants in China, for example - could be a relatively easy way to reduce arctic warming, he said.

Regulators in nations that encircle the Arctic, including the United States, Canada and Russia, could get more bang for the buck by reducing soot in the Arctic than by reducing greenhouse gases elsewhere.

“Keeping the poles cold is a great place to start,” Zender said. “Preserving the climate in the poles is very important now relative to any other piece of real estate on the planet.” The study was published by the Journal of Geophysical Research.  See full story here.

Over the last 6 months, readers of The West Australian newspaper have been subjected to a barrage of hysteria over global warming. Very bad news stories of one kind or another are published almost every day, all with the common theme that civilization as we know it is about to be destroyed. Day after day The West Australian delivers stories unequivocally foretelling the melting of ice caps and glaciers, death of forests, disease outbreaks, the collapse of agriculture, social disruption, loss of coastal communities and beaches, catastrophic storms, floods, droughts and bushfires. All of this is based on an unquestioning acceptance of the theory that human-induced CO2 emissions are causing the world to heat up, and an unquestioning belief in the link between projected warming and ghastly consequences.

The one-sided reporting of the global warming debate is perhaps explained by the fact that journalists are frightened of presenting both sides of the global warming story. They do not want to alienate those powerful sections of the community who will attack them if they do, i.e. environmentalists, academics and business interests profiting from global warming alarm. Alternatively we are just seeing another example of the professional immaturity of the Australian media. I have observed that they have always regarded dramatic disasters and fearsome calamities as more newsworthy than everyday life or good citizenship. Thus trees being chainsawed to the accompaniment of wailing protesters is a far “better” story than a forest quietly regrowing under the stewardship of dedicated foresters. I can see no solution to this. Read full post here.

Listen to MP2 of the Great Climate Debate between Marc Morano and Air American Host Thom Hartmann here. Drag audio bar to 36:25 to begin his combative debate with Thom Hartmann about Senate Report of 400+ Scientists.

Thom Hartmann of Air America

Marc Morano of EPW Senate Minority Office

There are apparently tens of millions of people around the world who are convinced global warming is real, and mankind (particularly American mankind) is responsible. Further, they believe utterly catastrophic results are imminent unless we drastically alter our lifestyles—and soon. These alterations include the things we eat, our transportation, our daily work and leisure habits, and even the number of children we should have. The problem is there are also tens of millions of people around the world who are skeptical of this theory, and, despite one side’s claims the debate is settled, a significant and growing number of climate experts keep challenging their conclusions.

So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.

Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. Read more here.

In Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog post ‘The Road from Climate Science to Climate Advocacy’, he discusssed the movement of scientists like Richard Somerville, a climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego from science towards more advocacy positions with respect to global warming. He concludes by asking the question “Do scientists have a special obligation to be neutral when it comes to the implications of their findings for society more broadly? Is it possible to advocate for a particular course in climate policy and not have that color how you do your scientific research, or how you communicate it? “

Though an interesting piece by itself, the reader comments were also quite illuminating. Two comments stood out. In this comment Raymond T. Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago tried to discredit the landmark EPW Minority Report by Marc Morano listing 400++ scientists and an impressive list of recent relevant peer review papers. In a later comment, Marc Morano responded (see Morano’s detailed response here). 

Like the March 2007 New York City debate between scientists over whether global warming was a “crisis” in which Dr. Somerville participated and was on the losing side (ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello criticized climate “crisis” advocate Richard Somerville as “perplexed” and “hardly inspiring"), Morano won this verbal debate hands down with Pierrehumbert.