By Dr. Ed Blick

United Nations politicians, while admitting their lack of evidence, gave birth and nurtured the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (APG). Their Malthusian purpose is to frighten people into accepting the UN as the “centerpiece of democratic global governance” and let the UN, ration our fossil fuel. World temperature records show no evidence of AGW.

See larger table here.

Solar activity in the 20th century was extremely high.

See larger graph here.

Atmospheric CO2 levels rose as the sea surface warmed. Henry’s Solubility Law, coupled with mass balances of carbon and its isotopes, prove the total increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial times is less than 4%. Burning all our remaining fossil fuels, cannot double the CO2, but only increase it by 20%. Beck (2007 cataloged 90,000 chemical measurements of CO2 in the 1800s, some as high as 470 ppm. (Greater than the current Mauna Loa value of 385 ppm). These data exposed as false, the UN IPCC’s 280 ppm ice core values, supposedly measured during the 1800s. IPCC’s ice core measurements of CO2 were incorrect due to their inability to correct for problems with gas solubility and the extreme pressures in glaciers.  Not man, but nature rules the climate.

See larger graph here.

Introduction

The recent American Physical Society (APS) debate on anthropogenic global warming was welcomed by many like myself, who believe it be a hoax and the political agenda for the Democratic Party and their environmental extremist supporters. I’ve never seen any convincing evidence for it. The paper by Hafemeister and Schwartz was a side show, in that it just repeated some of the basic IPCC dogma. The considerable evidence presented by Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in his APS article “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” was convincing. The rebuttal by Dr. Smith was not.

An important part of the APS global warming debate that should be covered is; 1) The credibility of the UN politicians who started this hoax, and 2) The truth about the minimal increase in the amount of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 .

Hopefully this full paper/rant (here) will address these issues and assist in convincing readers that AGW is a hoax, religion, or junk science, and is worthless in its predictions of global warming.

Ed Blick has 54 years experience. He is a former Prof. of Engineering, Univ. Of Oklahoma, 1959-2007. Author of 150 publications in engineering, meteorology & medicine (cardiology), and two engineering textbooks. He is a co-developer of a medical blood pressure patent. He is the inventor of the Strouhal Strummer windmill.

By Rebecca English

Prince Charles was accused of hypocrisy last night for using a private jet on an ‘environmental’ tour of South America. The prince will travel to the region next month in a visit costing an estimated 300,000 pounds (about 485,000 US$) as part of his crusade against global warming. He will use a luxury airliner to transport himself, the Duchess of Cornwall and a 14-strong entourage to Chile, Brazil and Ecuador on a 16,400-mile round trip.

-

Aides insist it is impossible for the prince to complete the ten-day official visit using scheduled flights as he will undertake almost 40 engagements. They also stress that he will offset his carbon emissions. But last night critics seized on his choice of transport. Labour MP Ian Davidson, a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: ‘It would be hard to make this up’. ‘To hear that the Prince of Wales is flying to South America to save the environment and taking 14 staff on his jet at hideous cost just for this trip is the height of the absurd.

‘At a time when the greed of bankers is causing much adverse comment I would have thought that Prince Charles would have had more sense than to be so financially and ecologically wasteful.’ The prince’s determination to bring environmental issues to the forefront of public policymaking has been regularly praised but has also left him open to accusations of hypocrisy. He was roundly criticised for flying first class to the U.S. with a 20-strong entourage to collect an environmental award in 2007. Read more here.

As reported in the Tom Nelson Blogspot

According to James Hansen, coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them! The government is expected to give the go-ahead to the coal-burning Kingsnorth power plant. Here, one of the world’s foremost climate experts launches an excoriating attack on Britain’s long love affair with the most polluting fossil fuel of all. 

James Hansen in the UK Observer

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.The climate is nearing tipping points.

Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

The public, buffeted by weather fluctuations and economic turmoil, has little time to analyse decadal changes. How can people be expected to evaluate and filter out advice emanating from those pushing special interests? How can people distinguish between top-notch science and pseudo-science?Those who lead us have no excuse - they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. They have at their disposal the best scientific organisations in the world, such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. Only in the past few years did the science crystallise, revealing the urgency.

Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we’ll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has already risen to a dangerous level. The pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil and gas, have increased this to 385 ppm; it continues to grow by about 2 ppm per year. Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide.

So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years - if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harbouring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened.The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth’s history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world’s great cities are located on coastlines.The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth’s history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks.

In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction, we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders. Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually. The tragedy of the situation, if we do not wake up in time, is that the changes that must be made to stabilise the atmosphere and climate make sense for other reasons. They would produce a healthier atmosphere, improved agricultural productivity, clean water and an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat.Fossil-fuel reservoirs will dictate the actions needed to solve the problem. Oil, of which half the readily accessible reserves have already been burnt, is used in vehicles, so it’s impractical to capture the carbon dioxide. This is likely to drive carbon dioxide levels to at least 400 ppm. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.

Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world’s oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on “clean coal” or that they will build power plants that are “capture-ready” in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants.The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.The German and Australian governments pretend to be green. When I show German officials the evidence that the coal source must be cut off, they say they will tighten the “carbon cap”. But a cap only slows the use of a fuel - it does not leave it in the ground. When I point out that their new coal plants require that they convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground, they are silent. The Australian government was elected on a platform of solving the climate problem, but then, with the help of industry, it set emission targets so high as to guarantee untold disasters for the young, let alone the unborn.

These governments are not green. They are black - coal black.The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order. Politicians here have asked me why am I speaking to them. Surely the US must lead? But coal interests have great power in the US; the essential moratorium and phase-out of coal requires a growing public demand and a political will yet to be demonstrated.The Prime Minister should not underestimate his potential to transform the situation. And he must not pretend to be ignorant of the consequences of continuing to burn coal or take refuge in a “carbon cap” or some “target” for future emission reductions. My message to Gordon Brown is that young people are beginning to understand the situation. They want to know: will you join their side? Remember that history, and your children, will judge you.

James Hansen is director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He was the first to testify to congress on global warming in 1988. In 20008 in an anniversary, testimony, the globe was significantly cooler than in 1988.