Concentration Camps To Re-educate Deniers Next?

It’s time to make public examples of those that disagree with reporter, and non-science-educated Richard Glover’s view of climate change. He would have skeptics “forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” Says the man, whom I’m willing to bet would not be able to explain a Lagrangian to save his life,

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, “Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

Glover never says what form this cattle brand should take. Yellow and pink stars having already had their day, and the Mark of the Beast yet to come, I suggest a likeness of Alfred Wegener, a man who stood against the - strike that: the - consensus of his day, only to see his views vindicated in time.

Our would-be Australian comic Glover admits that “maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.” Only a “bit”, my dear?

As an alternative to imitating the Gestapo, he next suggests forcing his opponents “to buy property on low-lying islands”. He has the idea that this land “will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise”. As a duly elected officer of the Climate Skeptics Conspiracy, I accept this suggestion as binding, with just two provisos. The first is that our bids face no competition from other land speculators. Fair’s fair, after all.

To own a hunk of Hawaii - oceanfront Hawaii! A fraction of Fiji! Tracts of Tahitian Beaches! Imagine the views from the Virgins! White sands, palm trees, rum by the gallon! All at rock bottom prices, practically given away to those who refuse to heed the Chicken Littles of their day. You have yourself a deal, Glover, old man.

As long as you accept proviso two, designed to make the bet equitable. Writing in the June, 2011 New Criterion, Joseph Tartakovsky reviews the life of James Wilson, one of America’s founding fathers. Wilson, said, Tarakovsky

“mocks timidity about new legislation by recalling that the Locrians required a citizen who wished to propose a law to appear before the assembly with a cord around his neck and explain his reasons; if they were found wanting, he was promptly hanged.

We’ll buy the land, but you and your nervous brethren must immediately slip nooses around your necks so that if, say, in five years our beaches still exist, we can hang you from the nearest Bunya Bunya tree. I suggest1 that it would be unmanly - that is to say, womanly - of you to cavil with this bet.

Death Threats For Climate Scientists

Some Australian climate scientists have received death threats, over which Boing Boing inaptly calls “social media.”

These scientists are not enjoying threats because of their scientific activities, but because of their political activism. Seems a good many researchers are agitating for a new “carbon tax” to battle something called “carbon pollution.” It’s not clear what this is, but it must be euphemistic because of course carbon is the exact opposite of a pollutant.

But let’s not lose focus. Threats of death! Do meek men in lab coats who sport ill-considered facial hair and who sincerely believe they are “saving” their planet deserve to be told, “Shut up or die”? They do not.

I have investigated the matter and can say with certitude that the Climate Skeptic Conspiracy is not responsible for issuing intimidations via Twitter, Facebook, or any other media. We do not take in half-wits as members, and it is from this appalling group the threats originate.

I admit to jealousy: I have never received a death threat. That is to say, not since my days as a military man, where I heard with some regularity variants of the phrase, “Briggs, you ---. I’m gonna kill you!” And there was the incident where a sheriff, with whose son I had a tussle back in high school, drug me into his car and pointed his pistol at my nose and asked politely to distance myself from his spawn.

I suppose I should count the time, just last week, when a guy tried to muscle his car past me on 59th street, where I was crossing on foot. We exchanged words, but traffic forced him to drive on. Which he did, but only around the block, where he found me on 60th, and where we expressed views that most courts of law would interpret as threats of a mortal nature.

It is better said that I never received death threats for my political views. I am still hopeful.

I am old enough to recall the salad days of NASA.  Americans of my age vividly remember the scratchy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon in 1969 and the pride we felt for our country. In the next few years ten more of our finest put their footprints in the dust of Earth’s one natural satellite.

Now NASA is using its own artificial satellites to raise the sea level.

The basics of the Moon’s effect on the daily oscillations of sea level have been understood since Newton’s Principia.  Newton showed that the twice daily tides were caused by the differential gravitational acceleration between the sides of the Earth closest and farthest from the Moon.  Newton’s classical explanation is quite adequate for mundane things like tidying up tide tables.  But we are in a different age, and the NASA scientists have other things in mind.

NASA’s artificial satellites are now raising the sea level.  No coastal city or dweller will be safe if NASA is allowed to go on with this diabolical plot.

Plan to raise sea levels

TOPEX and Jason satellites raising sea levels.

The preliminary steps of this diabolical plot came to fruition in 1992 when NASA lifted the TOPEX satellite into orbit.  This single satellite caused an immediate and well documented near double increase in worldwide sea level rise rates.  TOPEX was followed into orbit by the Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, which managed to maintain the elevated sea level rise rates after TOPEX gave up the ghost.  NASA could lift an armada of these satellites into orbit, and then you can kiss Manhattan and Florida goodbye.

NASA documents reveal the effect of these experiments.  The first shows the planet’s sea level prior to the launch of TOPEX and the second shows the Earth’s sea level after the lauch of TOPEX.

Sea level rise rate is about 1.7 mm/year prior to satellite launch (enlarged).

Sea level rise rate is 3.3 mm/year after satellite launch (enlarged).

As you can see, the instant the satellite goes on line in ’93, the sea level rise rate doubles.  Coincidence?  I think not!

In the plot below I have digitized the data from the two above graphs and translated them to overlay from 1993 to 2000.  The trendlines illustrate the stark reality: coastal cities are doomed unless NASA can be stopped.

Astronauts Fight Back

Harrison Schmitt went to the Moon on Apollo 17.  He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard.  Here are his comments…

Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon with Neil Armstrong.  He has a PhD from MIT.  Here are his comments…

Walter Cunningham was the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 7.  He has a Masters in Physics from UCLA.  You can read his comments here (Houston Chronicle, 8/15/2010).

Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the climate scare would have been shocked by last week’s conference at the University of Ottawa.  In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was the norm among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits).

The lead symposium of the conference, “Earth climate: past, present, future”, was especially revealing. Chaired by University of Toronto geology professor Dr. Andrew Miall, the session description starts: “The scientific debate about climate change is far from over. Some of the projections of climate change and its consequences contained in the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been called into question. This symposium will address some of these issues and present a geological perspective on the scientific debate.”

Talk after talk at GAC-MAC were from “climate rationalists”, defined by Australian geology Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University as “persons who are critical (on balanced scientific grounds) of the IPCC’s alarmism, ...reflecting the primacy that such persons give to empirical data and thinking. The climate rationalist approach contrasts markedly with the untestable worlds of computer virtual reality that so many climate alarmists now inhabit.”

Leading off the GAC-MAC climate symposium was fellow Australian, Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor in the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering at the University of Adelaide. In a keynote presentation entitled “Human-induced climate change: Why I am skeptical”, Plimer completely dismantled the greenhouse gas-driven climate change hypothesis. He showed how climate has varied naturally on all time scales and how recent changes are not unusual. Plimer explained the lack of meaningful correlation between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and planetary warming and cooling and how “climate models throw no new light on climate processes.” He concluded, “Pollution kills, CO2 is plant food, H2O vapour is the main greenhouse gas....  Humans can adapt to future changes.”

Following Plimer were 14 other climate presentations by leading geoscientists. Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute of the Danish Technical University spoke about how cosmic ray variations in the atmosphere are influencing climate by changing the microphysics of clouds. University of Ottawa emeritus professor Ján Veizer presented his research describing the role of the sun and water vapour on CO2 and climate change. Calgary geologist Norm Kalmanovitch detailed his findings that human-caused global warming theories are not supported by observational data. Carleton University researcher Dr. Hafida El Bilali showed how her work with paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson revealed that variations in the output of the sun have had a major influence on regional climate for the past nine millennia.

And so it continued. Not a single presentation in the symposium supported the IPCC’s human-caused dangerous global warming hypothesis. In the discussion period following the talks, climate rationalists decried the lack of media or public attention to the symposium or their research findings. In the exhibit hall, few exhibiters seemed interested in human-caused global warming and the catastrophic messages that so overwhelm delegates at other climate-related conferences were nowhere to be found.

Where were the scientist supporters of climate alarmism? Did they not know that climate was a major focus of this, the largest geologic conference in the country?

They knew. According to Miall, even though some were directly invited, they either refused to participate or ignored the invitation. “The people on the IPCC side will not debate,” explained Miall. “Anything that’s brought up that they disagree with they say has been dealt with and is no longer considered important or is a minor effect. This is often quite wrong.”

In front of the public lecture at last June’s Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS)/Canadian Geophysical Union (CGU) Congress in Ottawa, the prospect of a public debate between the two sides was put to keynote speaker Dr. Warwick Vincent of Laval University. Vincent was supportive, as was a CMOS past president. Yet, on later approaching CMOS executives and directors about taking the steps necessary to arrange such a public dialog, the responses were negative to the point of abuse and nothing transpired.

Suggestions of a proper climate science debate have been ignored by CMOS for many years.  For example, in the December 1997 CMOS Bulletin long-time CMOS member Dr. Madhav Khandekar, then just retired from his Research Scientist position at Environment Canada, pushed for an open dialog in his article “Global warming & climate change in Canada: A need for an open scientific debate” CMOS executives completely ignored the piece.

In 1990, Dr. Tad Murty, then Senior Research Scientist in DFO’s Institute of Ocean Sciences and chairman of the scientific committee for that year’s CMOS congress, tried to arrange it so that two of the four invited speakers were climate rationalists. However, the other nine scientists on the scientific committee vetoed the idea and it died. 

Going into next week’s congress in Victoria, CMOS, like many organizations of its ilk, maintains a rigid stance of climate catastrophilia. The congress includes sessions described with clearly mistaken statements such as “Recent research has highlighted the irreversibility of CO2-induced climate change on centennial timescales ....” Other, less extreme but also unjustified assertions abound: “It has become widely recognized that under a changing climate, the frequency and intensity of meteorological/hydrological extreme events and associated damage costs would more likely increase in the 21st century.”

The narrow-mindedness of CMOS and other climate alarmists matters because they have the ear of mass media, most of whom uncritically report on CMOS’ public statements that the science is settled and debate unnecessary. As a consequence, the public are highly influenced and seriously flawed CMOS messages are incorporated into government pronouncements and actions.

Miall maintains that the views of geoscientists are crucial for a proper understanding of climate. Consequently, uncomfortable though it may be for these experts, society needs them to speak out forcefully. Otherwise, the climate alarm, its science failing but the movement still powerful, will stagger on, leading society to waste billions of dollars and destroy thousands of jobs. It is time to put the climate change zombie out of its misery.

In celebration of World Environment Day, the Queensland Division of the Property Council of Australia convened a breakfast meeting last Friday morning (June 3rd) to debate the topic “Australia needs a carbon tax”.

Leading speaker for the motion was Mr. Matthew Bell (Climate Change & Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young), supported by Ms. Kellie Caught (Acting Head of Climate Change, WWF Australia) and Mr. Kirby Anderson (Policy Leader, Energy Infrastructure, General Electric).

Speaking against the motion were Mr. Michael Matusik (Director, Matusik Property Insights), supported by Mr. John Humphreys (Director, Human Capital Project, University of Queensland) and Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University and Institute of Public Affairs).

The audience of about 150 persons were treated to some pointed exchanges, with the team speaking for the motion concentrating rather more on the science, and their opponents almost exclusively on the economics and cost:benefit analysis of the introduction of a carbon tax.

One compelling argument was the observation that to introduce a carbon tax of $25/tonne of carbon dioxide would cost around $100 billion by 2020, for a notional benefit of 0.0002C (two ten thousandths of a degree) of warming averted.

The opponents of the tax were awarded a clear win, on rendered applause, by debate Chairman Mr Mark Ludlow (Australian Financial Review).

Like their allies in the universities and media, the Union of Concerned Scientists have taken both sides of many issues in recent years - decreasing snow/increasing snow, warm winters/cold winters, decreasing western snowpack and water supply/increasing western snowpack and water supply, increasing drought/increasing flooding etc. Now they’re health experts. They get far more credibility in the media than they deserve. Take for example today’s USATODAY where again their story is wrong an every count.

USA Today reports: “Left unchecked, climate change could increase breathing problems and health costs by exacerbating ground-level ozone, warns a report Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Higher ozone levels could trigger 2.8 million additional serious respiratory illnesses and 944,000 extra missed school days in the United States in 2020 that could cost $5.4 billion, according to the peer-reviewed report by the Cambridge, Mass.-based environmental group. ‘Even a small increase in ozone due to a warmer climate would have a significant impact on public health,’ said report co-author and UCS public health expert Liz Perera in announcing the findings. ‘It would mean more asthma attacks, respiratory illnesses, emergency room trips and premature deaths.’ The most vulnerable U.S. states? The study used a mapping model by the Environmental Protection Agency to calculate national impacts and rank the 10 states most likely to be harmed in 2020. In terms of costs, the research found that California would be hit hardest, followed by Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey and Virginia. It said these states have large numbers of urban residents, children and seniors as well as high levels of nitrogen oxides and VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions from vehicles and power plants...If global warming emissions continue to increase, the study estimates that average U.S. temperatures could rise 3 to 5.5 F by 2050 and result in about 11.8 million additional serious respiratory illnesses, 29,600 more infant and senior hospitalizations and 4.1 million additional lost school days in 2050. Yet it says these health impacts could be cut about 70% if emissions decline and temperatures rise 2 to 4 F instead. “The good news is we can address both ozone pollution and climate change by cutting fossil fuel emissions,’ Todd Sanford, a UCS climate scientist and report co-author, said in a statement.”

CCM and former state climatologist George Taylor responded: Higher temperatures do not cause higher ozone. Ozone in the atmosphere is produced mainly from a reaction between sunlight and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). So sunny summer days end up being the warmest AND the highest in ozone, but it’s the SUN, not the air temperature, that causes the ozone to rise. Joel Schwartz and I wrote a report called Air Quality False Alarm, some years ago addressing this issue. Excerpt:

During the last 30 years, urban temperatures have risen, yet ozone levels have declined. Urban temperatures have risen an average of 1-3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) during the last 30 years, yet ozone levels have fallen (National Climatic Data Center 2004). The temperature increase is due mainly to the urban heat island effect, rather than global climate change, as demonstrated by the fact that rural temperatures have risen more slowly than urban. For
example, de Laat and Maurellis (2004) state “the ‘real’ global mean surface temperature trend is very likely to be considerably smaller than the temperature trend in the CRU [Hadley Center/Climate Research Unit global data set] data.” Other researchers have published similar results (see e.g., Karl, Diaz et al. (1988)).

Nevertheless, despite increasing urban temperatures, the average number of exceedances per year of EPA’s 8-hour ozone standard declined 75 percent from 1975 to 2004, while exceedances of the 1-hour standard declined 95 percent. Figure 1 shows the trend in the national-average number of days per year with ozone exceeding EPA’s 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards for all ozone monitoring locations in the U.S. The graph also includes the national average trend in peak daily summer temperatures in the U.S. from 1975 to 2004. Note the large variation in 8-hour ozone levels from year to year. These short-term variations are due to differences in weather from year to year, including not only temperature, but rain, wind, and other meteorological ariables. Superimposed on these short-term variations is a long-term decline in ozone exceedance days due to ongoing reductions in ozone-forming emissions.

Enlarged.

Icecap Note: The other part of the UCS story that fails is the claim of warming. Here in the US, temperatures have declined the last decade as the solar activity has declined and oceans begun cooling. The winter cooling is most significant.

Here is the decadal trend of temperatures in the United States first annual:

Enlarged.

When will the media stop thinking of the UCS as real scientists with real concerns and recognize they are an enviromental advocacy group much like the WWF, Greenpeace, EDF?