By Norm Kalmanovitch

The single greatest failure of science is what philosophers call “appeal to authority”, whereby the stature of a person allows statements made by that person to be taken as absolute fact when such statements are only opinions based on perception and have never been verified. The IPCC models are based on the assumptions of Arrhenius and use an artificially contrived “CO2 forcing parameter” based on the Arrhenius supposition relating 0.6C of observed warming directly to a 100ppmv increase in atmospheric concentration. Not only does this parameter ignore quantum physics in its construction, it relates the entire 0.6C of warming directly to CO2 increases without subtracting the 0.5C of natural warming since the Little Ice Age; essentially creating a parameter for the effect of CO2 that is six times too large. When Arrhenius developed his theories about the effect of CO2 on the global temperature he did not have the benefit of Quantum Physics to define the process, and falsely assumed an incorrect relationship.

Svante Arrhenius: 1859-1927

The entire climate change issue is nothing more than compounded “appeal to authority”. First Hansen used the authority of Arrhenius, then the IPCC used the authority of Hansen, then Gore used the authority of the IPCC, and now Chu has also used the authority of the IPCC and completely ignores his own fundamental knowledge that won him the Nobel Prize for Physics (ironically for investigations into a similar process). This is where the “appeal to authority” has to stop, because the President does not have the background to even question Chu about the validity of this conjecture.

There is irrefutable data that clearly demonstrates that the world has been cooling since 2002, even as CO2 emissions continue to rise as demonstrated by this graph of raw monthly global temperature data and atmospheric CO2 data. Also present on this graph is clear indication that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 showed no reversal from 1979 to 1982 even though there was a reduction in CO2 emissions over this time period as a result of conservation efforts because of the skyrocketing oil prices of the time.

At the 2006 IPCC Climate Conference in Nairobi, this graph was presented to demonstrate the need for drastic action to reduce CO2 emissions. What this graph does show, is that the IPCC base their projections on emissions under the false assumption that concentration increases are directly and primarily due to emissions from fossil fuels. This is clearly and demonstrably false because the reversal in emissions from 1979 to 1982 shown on this graph is not present on graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration over this same time frame, indicating that increases in emissions are not the primary or even a significant source for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The following graph is the annual averaged CO2 concentration. Notice that there is no reversal in concentration at the point where the curve crosses the grid line for 1980 where the emissions curve shows a reversal.

See large image here.

There is absolute and irrefutable proof that the Earth is cooling in spite of the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 falsifying the conjecture that increasing CO2 is the dominant driver of global warming. There is absolute and irrefutable proof that CO2 emissions are not a major contributor to the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and therefore have no measurable effect on climate, even if there was a significant effect from CO2.

As a scientist of Nobel Prize winning stature, by “appealing to authority”, Steven Chu has committed a serious breach of science protocol. In light of this evidence and more importantly because of the position of trust that Chu holds with the President, it is imperative that Chu ignore all the dogma and rhetoric and go back to his basic knowledge of quantum physics and expose this sham for what it is, and properly advise the president on this issue. Read full analysis of which this was just an excerpt here.

By Todd Woody, New York Times Business

When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk. By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects - Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors. As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize. “This does stress the limits of credibility to some extent,” a California energy commissioner, Jeffrey Byron, said at one contentious hearing, “when an attorney representing a labor union is so focused on the potential impact of a solar power plant on birds.”

Union leaders acknowledge that they make aggressive use of the environmental laws, but say they do it out of genuine concern for the sustainability of California’s power industry, not just as a negotiating tactic. And they contend they do not abandon valid environmental objections to a project just because a company signs a labor agreement. “We’ve been tarred and feathered more than once on this issue,” said Marc Joseph, a lawyer for California Unions for Reliable Energy. “We don’t walk away from environmental issues.”

At proposed fossil-fuel power plants, the union group has long been accused of exploiting environmental laws to force companies into signing labor agreements. The tactic is a subject of perennial discussion in the California legislature, which has considered, but never passed, bills to strip labor of its right to participate in environmental assessments. What is new is that California Unions for Reliable Energy, a coalition of construction unions, appears to be applying this approach to new-age renewable energy projects, especially solar power plants, which are being fast-tracked to help meet the state’s green power target.

Lawyers for the union both negotiate labor agreements with solar developers and participate in the environmental review of the projects. California Unions for Reliable Energy insists it is pursuing the long-term interests of its members. If energy projects are held to high environmental standards, the group says, more of them will ultimately get built, and that will mean more union jobs. Nationwide, as billions of dollars in public and private investment flow to renewable energy projects, the environmental and labor battles being fought in California could prove to be the opening skirmishes of a larger fight over the emerging green economy.

What is new is that California Unions for Reliable Energy, a coalition of construction unions, appears to be applying this approach to new-age renewable energy projects, especially solar power plants, which are being fast-tracked to help meet the state’s green power target.

Lawyers for the union both negotiate labor agreements with solar developers and participate in the environmental review of the projects. California Unions for Reliable Energy insists it is pursuing the long-term interests of its members. If energy projects are held to high environmental standards, the group says, more of them will ultimately get built, and that will mean more union jobs.

Nationwide, as billions of dollars in public and private investment flow to renewable energy projects, the environmental and labor battles being fought in California could prove to be the opening skirmishes of a larger fight over the emerging green economy. Read more here.

By Marc Morano on Climate Depot

The following is a guest post by Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Chris Walcek, a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Dr. Walcek is joining many other scientists in critiquing President Obama’s new global warming report.

Dr. Walcek: The authors of the latest US climate change report would make Pravda editors and reporters blush with envy on how they can misconstrue and mis-report truths for a propaganda angle.

In the climate report’s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY there is statement that WINTER temperatures across the northern great plains have increased MORE THAN 7 degrees over the past 30 years. Whenever I see ABSURD claims like these, I delve into archived temperatures (Global Historical Climate Network) archived at our National Climate Data Center and wade through the analysis to see the “truth”. Attached are two figures showing actual thermometer measurements (I doubt that actual thermometer measurements are shown ANYWHERE in this report...) This was the first site I looked at.... but I am confident that the conclusions are robust and more general.

Why only look at winter temperatures (3 months of the year), and IGNORE the other 75% of the measurements? because summer temperatures and annual temperatures show COOLING!!

Why only look at the past 30 years, and IGNORE the entire 100 years, thus “throwing out” over 70% the data? because over the entire record the trends are negligible and show little warming.

Where the HECK did they get 7 degree F warming??? Sioux City Iowa shows winter temperatures only increasing about 3 F warming in recent decades. They probably compared one recent year with a single year 50 years ago, neglecting to tell us that winter temperatures in the northern great plains naturally vary from year-to-year by 15-18 degrees F ALL THE TIME!! next winter could be 10-20 degrees warmer or cooler than this winter in any location in the upper great plains, and even a 7F warming is well within the natural “noise”. (but that 7 F number is apparently pure fiction!!))

Icecap Note: “East North Central (Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin) mean temperatures for winter and annual show little trend as Dr. Walcek correctly states. Note the cyclical behavior related to PDO and the 30 years was starting at the coldest point of the 60 year cycle and 2005 near the peak. Also recognize the small longer term net warmings could easily be related to some combination of the grand solar maxima and contamination of station data by urbanization and bad siting. See story under Whats New and Cool on NOAA as an outlier. (Source NCDC)

See Marc’s full post and more here.