UK Telegraph
The rotary blades on the 30ft (9m) structure have struck at least 14 birds in the past six months. The turbine, at Southwell Community Primary School, Portland, was installed 18 months ago thanks to a grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It provided six kilowatts of power an hour, but its performance was overshadowed by the number of birds killed - far higher than the one fatality per year predicted by the manufacturer.
Headteacher Stuart McLeod was even forced to come into school early to clear up the bodies before his young pupils spotted them. School governers consulted seagull eyesight experts and investigated bringing in bird-scaring plastic owls to solve the problem, but to no avail.
Mr McLeod said they had tried everything to stop the carnage but had no choice but to shut the turbine down. He said: “We’ve got the ideal location for wind power but unfortunately seagulls kept flying into it. “We were told by the manufacturer to expect maybe one fatality a year but it killed 14 in six months so we took advice and made the decision to turn it off.
“If it had happened at night time you could understand that the birds couldn’t see the blades, which rotate at 135mph but it was happening at all different times of the day.” Mr McLeod said he worried about the impact on the birds and his pupils, who got upset when deaths happened during playtimes and lunchtimes.
He said: “The school governors investigated putting scaffolding up but that would impact on its performance, we thought about painting the blades a dazzle yellow but the manufacturer said that couldn’t be done. “We’ve even gone as far as Stansted Airport to investigate bird-scaring plastic owls and we spoke to herring gull eyesight experts at the Natural History Museum.
“We’ve tried so hard to be eco-friendly but now we can’t turn it on. “We can’t get rid of it either because we bought the turbine we had to apply for grants and the grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change states that it has to stay on site for five years.” The school is now negotiating with Dorset County Council about the future of the wind turbine.
-----------
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
Office of Senator James Inhofe Press Release
Inhofe Comments on Yucca Mountain Application
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today welcomed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Construction Authorization Board decision to deny the Department of Energy’s (DOE) motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain application. The NRC’s Construction Authorization Board ruled against DOE’s motion to withdraw, stating: “...the NWPA (Nuclear Waste Policy Act) does not give the Secretary the discretion to substitute his policy for the one established by Congress in the NWPA that, at this point, mandates progress toward a merits decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the construction permit.”
“I’m glad to see that the Construction Authorization Board agrees with me that DOE does not have the authority to withdraw the application to build a repository at Yucca Mountain,” Senator Inhofe said. “Certainly, DOE Secretary Chu has given no reason for the NRC to cease its safety review other than stating that Yucca Mountain is no longer ‘a workable option.’ While such comments may serve a political purpose, I’m glad the Construction Authorization Board has chosen to base its decision on the law.”
-----------
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
CO2 Skeptic
Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article “Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist” (google rough translation). Her name is Judith Lean (photo below).
On the basis of this “consensus of one” solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): “I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight”...:
Klimaskeptic.cz continues [google translation + editing]: “As I wrote elsewhere (article on pmode ACRIM), Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) “manipulated” the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world’s best astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Wilson: “Frohlich has made changes that are wrong ... He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 ... pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes.” [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Wilson].
Recent Peer review papers on the solar earth climate connection
Long-term solar activity as a controlling factor for global warming in the 20th century, (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8, pp. 1271-1274, December 2009) - V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov
A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 62-76, January 2010) - Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vladimir Kossobokov, Vincent Courtillot
Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North Atlantic–European case (Global and Planetary Change, January 2010) - Nils-Axel Morner
Solar activity and climatic variability in the time interval from 10 to 250 Ma ago (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 141-152, April 2010) - O. M. Raspopov et al.
A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 7-8, pp. 595-606, May 2010) - Vladimir Kossobokov, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Vincent Courtillot
------------------
Stunning lightning video over Chicago
By Vlad Savov, Engadget
Lightning strikes three of the tallest buildings in Chicago at the same time! from Craig Shimala on Vimeo.
-----------------
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
Wall Street Journal
Pres. Obama:
“The days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
Except When it Comes to Offshore Drilling. The Wall Street Journal (6/22) editorializes, “The President has appointed a seven-person commission to take what he says will be an objective look at what caused the Gulf spill and the steps to make offshore drilling safe. But judging from the pedigree of his commissioners, we’re beginning to wonder if his real goal is to turn drilling into a partisan election issue. Mr. Obama filled out his commission last week, and the news is that there’s neither an oil nor drilling expert in the bunch. Instead, he’s loaded up on politicians and environmental activists. The choice of men and women who are long opposed to more drilling suggests not a fair technical inquiry but an antidrilling political agenda. With the elections approaching and Democrats down in the polls, the White House is looking to change the subject from health care, the lack of jobs and runaway deficits. Could the plan be to try to wrap drilling around the necks of Republicans, arguing that it was years of GOP coziness with Big Oil that led to the spill? Even as this commission moves forward, engineering experts across the country have agreed that there is no scientific reason for a blanket drilling ban. The Interior Department invited experts to consult on drilling practices, but as we wrote last week eight of them have since said their advice was distorted to justify the Administration’s six-month drilling moratorium. Judging from that decision and now from Mr. Obama’s drilling commission, the days of “science taking a back seat to ideology” are very much with us.”
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
Statement of Dana Joel Gattuso
Washington, D.C. - The following is a statement by Dana Joel Gattuso, director of of the Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of the National Center for Public Policy Research:
It has now been 57 days since the disastrous BP oil spill, and President Obama has still failed to take charge. Last night’s scare mongering address to the nation—avowing that the answer to the oil spill is for Americans to end their “addiction” to affordable energy—was no exception.
The American people want to hear that the President has a doable plan for stopping the continued spewing of oil and for cleaning up the mess. They do not want to hear him exploit a tragic oil drilling accident to fulfill his political agenda of replacing fossil fuels with costly, unviable alternative fuels that will drastically change our way of life. Nor do Americans want to be penalized for BP’s actions.
Furthermore, President Obama is not being honest with Americans when he says we’re running out of places to drill. As Patrick Creighton of the Institute for Energy Research tells the Los Angeles Times today, “We have over a trillion barrels of oil shale out West. Billion of barrels of untapped oil in Alaska. And more coal and natural gas than we know what to do with.”
The American people want to see action, not political opportunism from our President.
----------------
Our Caudillo President
By Ben Stein
As I write this on Monday night, there are rumors around that BP will agree to President Barack Obama’s demand that the oil giant “voluntarily” put about $30 billion into a fund to be administered by the government to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
Now, no one disputes that this is a real disaster and that BP acted irresponsibly in commissioning Trans-Ocean and Halliburton to drill for oil in waters so deep that if a failure occurred there would be no way to fix it—at least until major damage had been done. BP, Trans-Ocean, and Halliburton, as well as the individuals involved, have much to answer for.
But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders’ wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President’s job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. “None needed,” was the final answer.
Without any new legislation, President Obama has used returned TARP money as a political slush fund to prop up favorite industries. This is the same problem: serious executive action without legislative authority.
The same goes for Mr. Obama’s demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama’s demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act.
Of course, every President tries “jawboning” to restrain steel company price increases or something similar. But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority—now Mr. Obama’s specialty—is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack “I Am The Law” Obama.
Is there anyone in Congress to stop him? Is there anyone in a black robe to stop him? Or is everyone already too scared to challenge the Duce in the White House? See post and comments here.
----------------
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
By Robert D. Atkinson and Darrene Hackler
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there.
-----------------
The debate on policy responses to climate change is fueled by an array of myths, ranging from assumptions that high carbon taxes will generate needed clean innovations to the belief the U.S. is the natural leader in the clean energy sector. If we are to effectively address climate change while at the same time become globally competitive in the clean energy industry, policies need to be guided by careful and reasoned analysis.
In the report ITIF dismantles the top ten myths in the debate, which are:
(1) Higher prices on greenhouse gases are enough to drive the transition to a clean economy
(2) The U.S. can make major contributions to solving climate change on its own
(3) Cap-and-trade is a sustainable global solution
(4) We don’t need innovation; we have all the technology we need
(5) “Insulation is enough” (e.g. energy efficiency will save us)
(6) Low growth is the answer...just live simply
(7) Information technology (IT) is a significant contributor to climate change
(8) Going green is green (e.g., it makes economic sense to go green)
(9) We are world leaders on the green economy, and it’s ours for the taking
(10) Foreign green mercantilism is good for solving climate change (and good for the U.S.)
This PDF dismantles those myths.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
------------------------
Monckton’s Sydney Australia lecture and Q&A videos here courtesy of Dr. Bob Carter.
---------------
Here is an excellent very detailed time-line and forensic analysis on climate-gatedone by an Australian physicist.
Here is an excellent source of short videos by the top scientists to provide an alternative to the dogma from COMET and Heidi Cullen and Climate Central and sadly The Weather Channel. KUSI’s Coleman’s Corner has four videos by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo here.
Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
------------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
By Viv Forbes, Carbon Sense Coalition
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not: unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.The slogan “Press On” has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” US President Calvin Coolidge
Our Challenge
Some people think that the global warming scam is finished, that the Ration-N-Tax Scheme is dead, and that there is no further threat to our jobs, our economy and our energy supplies. Unfortunately there is no reason to relax. Public opinion has changed but the politicians have not.
Britons recently had a chance to vote on the “Oh so Green” Labour Party of Gordon Brown. They entered the polling booths holding their noses, pleased to get rid of one lot, but with no enthusiasm for the other lot. The “Conservative” Coalition governing Britain is also deep green, and in love with the Climate Change agenda of green taxes, subsidies and mandates.
Over in USA, their Ration-N-Tax Scheme passed the lower house and was rebadged and recently re-presented to a suspicious Senate as “The American Power Act”. And the US Senate has just confirmed the right of their EPA to class carbon dioxide as a pollutant. As in much of the world, politicians are out of step with the public, who have other priorities: Across the Tasman, Kiwi’s changed governments but got the same carbon demonization policies.
Here in Australia, we can expect Penny Wong’s discredited Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to be rebadged as something like “The Power Conservation and Clean Energy Bill” (or something equally trendy). It will be supported by the wets in the Liberal Party, but it will still have a heart of carbon taxes and rationing. (Do you want a world where a bureaucrat could turn off your electrical appliances from a switch in his office?)
And the UN? Because it’s wayward offspring, the IPCC, is now tarnished goods, the international jet set need a new vehicle to justify their monthly jaunts at our expense to various hardship locations like Rio, Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen, Paris and Bonn (travelling on bicycles and sailing ships of course). We can expect things like an “IPCC for Nature”, which will try to impose global government, world taxation, wealth re-distribution and a new international bureaucracy to “protect the natural world”. As polar bears are thriving, the new buzz word may be “bio-diversity”. This will be a WWF/Greenpeace look-alike with one important difference - it will be funded with money conscripted from Western taxpayers.
And everywhere, politicians whose taxation, welfare, health and monetary policies are unsustainable will keep lecturing and commanding us to become “sustainable”.
We can expect little help. The mainstream media, especially the government media, will remain committed to bureaucratism, climatism and doomism. Corporate opposition will be bought off with subsidies or exemptions or cowed into submission by draconian tax threats.
The only persistent, consistent and uncompromising criticism of the whole Global Warming Agenda is coming from a few independent individuals, politicians and groups like the Carbon Sense Coalition.
It is now three years since, in mid 2007, a small group of Australians decided to form the Carbon Sense Coalition. Just 49 individuals, including representatives from USA, UK, New Zealand and Hong Kong made up the list of founders. No one offered support or financing for our efforts. Since then we have set up a web site, prepared numerous submissions to government enquiries, written letters and articles, issued media releases, had interviews for newspapers, radio and TV, attended conferences in Brisbane, Melbourne and New York, given telephone evidence to a New Zealand Parliamentary Enquiry in Wellington and appeared before an Australian Senate Enquiry in Rockhampton. Have a look at our web site.
We now have a membership/mail list of over 1500 people, and many of them resend our messages so we have no idea how many people are on our mail lists. This work has been done by a very small group of largely unpaid people. We have never levied or asked for a membership fee, nor actively sought subscriptions for our newsletters and research, but we have received 43 voluntary donations, mostly one off, in the 3 years of our existence. Unfortunately, none came from Big Oil or Big Coal. Big Gas criticised us, and Big Wind and Big Government both hope we will disappear.
We receive no money from any government body - in fact Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, our operating company, is NOT a tax exempt foundation and is NOT in receipt of any government handouts. It sends money to the government. It is an ordinary private company which pays GST and all regular taxes on all subscriptions received. Nor are we supported by the big corporates - they are too busy currying favour with governments for better deals, exemptions or subsidies. They cannot afford the risk of association with people who keep saying “But the Emperor has no Clothes”. Unfortunately, this business makes a loss.
So, Who Pays?
Someone always pays. When the bills for internet, web site, printing and computing come in, someone pays. When travel costs are incurred, someone pays. When time is spent on research and writing, other income earning activities are neglected. When time is spent answering hundreds of emails, then someone else has to be hired to help out on other work being neglected. When reference books are needed, someone pays. To date 43 people carried the load, with most of the financial and work burden falling on just seven people.
What Help do we need?
Our main aim is to spread “Carbon Sense”, but most mainstream media are still locked in carbon demonization. So our most helpful supporters are those who act as our private news distribution network. We have no idea how big our network is, but we are continually amazed at its worldwide reach and speed. If everyone grows their contact lists, so will our influence grow.
We also appreciate the small team who act as unpaid editors and reviewers of things we publish. We also have people who take time to research things. Usually these jobs are done at high speed to tight deadlines. We always appreciate new volunteer editors and researchers. And of course we appreciate financial support.
The cleanest financing mechanism is via an annual membership subscription for the “Carbon Sense” Newsletter. You decide what our work is worth, and we will accept the verdict. Current plans are to have a once yearly reminder to supporters. Others may prefer monthly contributions. For donations greater than $100 we will provide a tax receipt if requested. Large or small donations are very welcome but our resources cannot cope with sending regular reminders and receipts for many small donations.
Payments can be by mail to our address below, via the donate button on our web site, or we can provide bank details. However, we do not want anyone to think we do not want you unless you pay. Remember we are in the business of spreading ideas. All are welcome. Any support, financial, editing, research or spreading the word, will be greatly appreciated and will encourage our resolve.
“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food. For more information visit our web site. Literary or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. The Carbon Sense Coalition, MS 23, Rosewood, Qld 4340 Australia.
Your contributions to the Carbon Sense Coalition, ICECAP, Watts Up With That, Climate Audit or any of the realist web sites that are user supported vcan make a difference and is appreciated.
By Dr. Jeffrey Glassman
FINALLY, Dr Jeffrey Glassman’s recent paper is available in pdf form.
Its hosting site also offers a good summary of the direction his research has been taking.
The CrossFit Journal is proud to present this extraordinary article by Dr. Jeff Glassman. Formerly the Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions for Hughes Aircraft, Dr. Glassman has dedicated his career to improving the quality of science methodology among his peers and the community at large.
For years he has been disturbed by the lack of credible science identifying human activity as a cause of global warming. This paper is the latest of six papers published on his blog, Rocket Scientist’s Journal, and the first to advance the Sun as the cause of global climate change in the fine detail of the temperature record since the invention of the thermometer.
Dr. Glassman is the first scientist to show that the modern temperature record is contained in the reconstructed history of solar activity, and to advance a model for how that occurs. In his model, the ocean acts to absorb solar energy and return it to the atmosphere decades to centuries later, causing certain patterns in the Sun’s activity to be suppressed and other patterns to be reinforced as they affect Earth’s climate. The variations in the Sun’s activity are small, but are quickly amplified by clouds. This is a novel model for cloud reflectivity, called cloud albedo, in which increases in solar activity cause decreases in cloud cover by direct atmospheric warming, allowing more sunlight to reach Earth’s surface.
This rapid decrease in cloud cover to solar activity runs opposite to the slow increase in cloud cover caused by global warming, which adds humidity to the atmosphere to increase cloudiness. In this way, he says cloud albedo regulates Earth’s surface temperature in warm interglacial periods, capping Earth’s temperature within a few degrees of the present temperature. This, he says, doesn’t stop the greenhouse effect, but reduces its effect by at least one fourth. In the deep cold of the glacial minima known as ice ages, he notes that the atmosphere will be extremely dry and cloudless, turning off any greenhouse effect. In this condition, Earth’s temperature is controlled by the albedo effect of the surface because it is then covered by ice and snow, turning off the Sun and leaving Earth’s temperature to be the result of its internal heat.
Because the Sun variations match Earth’s temperature extremely well, human activities can be ruled out as a cause of observed global warming. However, the global warming movement, since 1988 headed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claims that the “fingerprint” of human activities are found in climate related measurements. Dr. Glassman investigates each of these claims and shows how they are false and scientific error.
In his first paper on climate, Jeff showed that the pattern of the solubility of CO2 in water as it varies with temperature is found in the ice core record. From this result, he concluded that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of global warming, and not the reverse. This, he noted, is confirmed by the fact that the CO2 concentration lags temperature at various rates, with a dominant component at about one millennium, the cycle time of the ocean conveyor belt. He also noted that this natural source of CO2 into the atmosphere is missing from IPCC’s climate models.
In his second paper, Jeff responded to criticisms from a noted federal government champion of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming, known as AGW. In this third paper, he showed the evidence for concluding that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, an assumption essential to the human-caused global warming notion. In his fourth paper, he showed how Earth’s climate is strongly correlated with one measurement of solar activity, the solar wind, a phenomenon missing from IPCC’s models. He shows that connection is approximately twice as strong as the connection between climate and the El Nino/La Nina effect, which IPCC claims exacts a terrible toll on humanity.
In his fifth paper, Jeff documents eight flaws in IPCC’s climate modeling, each of which is sufficient to invalidate AGW and IPCC’s work.
His sixth paper, reproduced here in the CrossFit Journal, draws from his earlier papers, which are critical of IPCC’s modeling efforts. It critiques IPCC’s fingerprint claims, but states a novel, positive model for Earth’s climate, one that stems from discovery of Earth’s entire record of temperature measurements in the radiation from the Sun. H/T Alan Siddons
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
------------------------
Monckton’s Sydney Australia lecture and Q&A videos here courtesy of Dr. Bob Carter.
---------------
Here is an excellent very detailed time-line and forensic analysis on climate-gatedone by an Australian physicist.
Here is an excellent source of short videos by the top scientists to provide an alternative to the dogma from COMET and Heidi Cullen and Climate Central and sadly The Weather Channel. KUSI’s Coleman’s Corner has four videos by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo here.
Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
------------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
See 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here. See more here and still more annotated here.
--------------
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.