By Dr. Frank Tipler, Mathematical Physicist Tulane University in William Katz’s Urgent Agenda
AGW is a scam, with no basis in science. A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:
(1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that the “the debate is over,” because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus’ opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristrachus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn’t: the Earth IS the third planet.
(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.
(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth’s average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.
(4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We’ve seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September’s temperatures for Russia rather than October’s. I’m not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.
(5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800’s that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.
(6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the “consensus” view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired. Stillman Drake, the world’s leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book “Galileo: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called “natural philosophers"), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The “out-of-the-mainsteam” Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo’s fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these “scientists” tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo’s fellow “scientists” called in the Inquisition to silence him.
I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are “dangerous.” I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.
Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science. Read more of this most interesting post by the latest dissenter from the so-called consensus here.
By Simon Sturdee, AFP
Natural disasters killed over 220,000 people in 2008, making it one of the most devastating years on record and underlining the need for a global climate deal, the world’s number two reinsurer said Monday. What I find particularly funny is, the article talks mostly about non-global warming caused disasters. For instance, 70,000 of those deaths were caused by an earthquake in China: Just days later an earthquake shook China’s Sichuan province, leaving 70,000 dead, 18,000 missing and almost five million homeless, according to official figures, Munich Re said.
He then talks about how COLD weather caused 1000 deaths in Afghanistan. Ya know I looked and looked, but I just couldn’t find where in the dictionary a “cold snap” was listed as a natural disaster:Around 1,000 people died in a severe cold snap in January in Afghanistan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan, while 635 perished in August and September in floods in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
He also admits that there were less natural disasters this year, than in 2007:Although the number of natural disasters was lower than in 2007, the catastrophes that occurred proved to be more destructive in terms of the number of victims and the financial cost of the damage caused, Germany-based Munich Re said in its annual assessment.
Furthermore, he works under the broad assumption that every one agrees with the legitimacy of global warming, and therefore, he doesn’t once try and make any sort of scientific or even logical link between natural disasters and global warming. He simply states that they are caused by increased pollution and global warming. Yep, another article by the MSM about how we are all going to die if we don’t avert global warming, by making our own compost piles, recycling fingernail clippings, and buying Al Gore’s DVDs. There are a lot of people out there, even some close to me, that claim all of this extreme weather is the result of global warming. Problem is, the evidence doesn’t support the claim that the natural disaster death’s of ‘08 are the result of global warming, or that increased global temperature leads to extreme weather patterns and disasters. In fact, sometimes it is the opposite, and has been more historically tied to El Nino, El Nina, and other fluctuating water currents. Hurricanes ‘are not caused by global warming’
Rising temperatures may actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, Tom Knutson claims in a new study. Dr Knutson’s change of heart has reignited the debate in the US about how closely hurricanes can be tied to global warming......Dr Knutson’s study, which is based on computer models, predicts that hurricanes will become less common, but more destructive, by the end of this century.They are also likely to be accompanied by much heavier downpours of rain. Dr. Knutson and colleagues from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Princeton, New Jersey, ran computer replays of each August to October hurricane season between 1980 and 2006. The simulations were then repeated to show what would happen if ocean and atmospheric conditions were altered by expected levels of global warming. The “warm climate” runs generated 27 per cent fewer tropical storms and 18 per cent fewer hurricanes. The team concluded that the recent jump in hurricane frequency was caused not by high temperatures in the Atlantic, but by differences in temperatures between oceans. Uniform warming of all ocean basins does not generate more hurricanes, they found.
Graph produced by GlobalWarmingHoax.com with data from NOAA
Well what about tornadoes you ask? The deadliest tornado decade since 1930 was the decade of the 1930’s. Tornado deaths have fallen every decade since 1930 up until the 1970’s when they increased about 5% over the previous decade. The 1970’s were also one of the cooler decades this century with below average temperatures and there isn’t any clear correlation between strong tornadoes and climate temperature. Every decade after the 1970’s have seen the number of tornado deaths fall.
Well what about lightning and floods? Actually both lightning and flood deaths are way down from their highs… Sorry. Looks like the claim that global warming is causing more natural disaster deaths is a bunch of crap. Thanks to globalwarminghoax.com for some of the graphs. Read more here.
By Bill Wichert, Express Times
The rear end of a cow could become the next source of financial hardship for farmers. Facing lower milk prices and higher operational costs, dairy farmers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania say they couldn’t afford the so-called cow tax, a suggestion made by federal officials to charge permit fees for livestock as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
“It’s just another expense a farmer doesn’t need,” said Layne Klein, whose family has been running a dairy farm for 73 years in Forks Township. “I guess you’d call it one more nail in the coffin.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raised the concept in a recent report on possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. Those regulations also could be extended to small businesses, schools, hospitals and churches.
In its comments on the EPA proposal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the regulations might force permitting requirements on dairy farms with more than 25 cows, beef cattle operations with more than 50 cattle, swine facilities with more than 200 hogs and farms with 500 or more acres of corn. The permit costs would mean $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 a head for beef cattle and $20 per hog, according to Liz Thompson, a research associate with the New Jersey Farm Bureau. A herd of 75 dairy cows would carry a price tag of about $13,000.
“It’s almost incredulity,” said Thompson, describing the reaction of some farmers. “‘What, are you kidding me?’” While there is not a formal proposal on instituting such a tax—doing so would take years to implement—the agriculture community has to be part of discussions about emissions regulations and climate change, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said.
In 2006, agricultural sources accounted for 6.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide, according to the EPA. One greenhouse gas, methane, can be converted into power when it comes from landfills, but the version coming off farms does not have the same second life, Shradar said. “We don’t know how to harness the rear end of a cow just yet for power generation,” he said.
The proposed regulations, however, could put farmers out of business, some say. For Warren County farmer Frank Gibbs, he and his sons would face up to $35,000 in permit fees to cover the roughly 200 cows on their 550-acre Allamuchy Township farm. His family has been farming the land since the late 1800s. “There’s no way,” Gibbs said. “That’s the end of the dairy business.” Read more here.