Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Daily Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Global Warming or Approaching Ice Age? Scientists Say the Sun Will have the Last Word

LONDON – Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit recently released data from 30,000 measuring stations that reveal there has been no global warming in the last 15 years. In fact, the findings suggest the earth might be headed for a mini ice age similar to one in the 17th century.

Photo by Andreas Tille (by permission through Wikimedia Commons)

Several leading climate scientists told the UK Mail that the sun is transitioning from the unusually high levels of energy seen throughout the 20th century toward a “grand minimum” in solar energy output. Such a minimum promises colder summers, extended bitter winter, and shortened crop seasons.

The sun is entering the peak of another 11-year solar cycle. Termed ‘Cycle 24’ by solar scientists, this cycle continues a trend of lessening sunspots since a high in the 20th century. Experts at the University of Arizona and NASA have been studying magnetic-field measurements from 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface and predict ‘Cycle 25’ will peak in 2022 even lower than the current cycle.

Europe experienced such a lowered cycle of solar output from 1645 to 1715. The coldest part of that period, known as the “Maunder minimum,” came to be known as the “Little Ice Age”. This period causes severe disruption of crop growing seasons and occasional famines.

How To Grow A Full Acre Crisis Garden

In spite of these findings, much of the scientific community continues to hold to a climate change model caused by man-made carbon dioxide. Responding to the Met findings, Peter Scott insists lessened output from the sun “would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.”  According to Scott, “Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.”

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, has authored a number of papers that challenge Met Office climate models. “If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.”

Scafetta contends too much emphasis is placed on C02 levels while ignoring the effect of a cool cycle from the sun. He observes, “The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate.”

Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology finds the Met Office’s lack of attention to lowered solar activity mystifying.

“The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,” said Professor Curry. Professor Curry believes factors other than CO2 play a more important role in the rise and fall of global temperatures.

A major influencer of global temperatures and weather, she says, are the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. “They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,” said Prof Curry. “When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years.”

Since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. “We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,” said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.”

The question remains: how long will politics remain at the forefront of scientific issues that are unresolved? Major decisions that will effect generations are being driven by what now is proving to be hasty, if not faulty, science. The implications aren’t just for the scientific community, but rather for society as a whole.

© 2008-2014 Off The Grid News

10 comments

  1. you must a clown are you going to believe man or GOD………………………

  2. Al Gore has said “The debate in the scientific community is over.” In contrast, not only was East Anglia’s lead global warmer, Phil Jones forced to admit that there is no consensus on global warming after the ClimateGate scam came to light in 2010, he stated about AGW “This is not my view… There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties…” Jones also went on to admit in a BBC interview about the debate being over that he didn’t “believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this.”

    Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, professor of atmospheric science has stated “Al Gore is wrong. There is no consensus on global warming.” and the frantic alarmism all over the media has, in Dr. Lindzen’s own words, “nothing to do with science.” For good measure, Dr. Lindzen added while speaking that the Heartland International Conference on Climate Change in New York in March, 2009, “I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm — as far as I can tell — has always been a political movement, a highly organized one…And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle.” Dr. Lindzen concluded his remarks at the Heartland conference by noting most of his colleagues subscribe to global warming either because they fear for their jobs, or find it a way get project funding, and quipped about climate models, similar to how scientists debate intelligent design, that climate models are an example of “unintelligent design”, indicating that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want Dr. Lindzen has a lengthy (~1.5 hr) highly academic presentation on why he disagrees with AGW at http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#.

    Dr. Lindzen has also specifically stated the phony “consensus” behind global warming is “unscientific” and stated that “With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign. When in 1988 Newsweek announced that all scientists agreed about global warming, this should have been a red flag of warning. Among other things, global warming is such a multifaceted issue that agreement on all or many aspects would be unreasonable.”” Perhaps it is, as famed neuroscientist famed neuroscientist Paul Broca once said, “The least questioned assumptions are the most questionable.”
    Meanwhile, Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray says about global warming: “It’s a big scam” and Stanley Goldberg of the U.S.’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) says about all the hot air surrounding Gore’s global warming “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into global warming.” Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Inst. has gone one step further and threatened legal action against the IPCC to have his name removed from their global warming document, calling it a sham, and Frederick Seitz Past President of the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a petition against the whole global warming façade at http://www.oism.org/pproject/. Over 19,000 scientist have signed this petition, as opposed to the 600 the U.N. could scrounge up, and some of these 600 have since reconsidered their past agreement, such as Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever who stated in an update to the U.S. Senate Minority report for 2007 that “Global warming has become a new religion” and “I am a skeptic.” Later, in 20011, Giaver upped the ante by resigning from the American Physical Society, stating “”The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.” Japanese scientist Kiniori Itoh, another former IPCC member has called Gorian warming a “scientific scandal,” while noting that people “will feel deceived by science and scientists” when they learn the truth. For a complete list of signees to the OISM petition – which includes a simply staggering number of Ph.Ds, – see http://www.oism.org/pproject/., where they are arranged in alphabetical order. Meanwhile a similar petition at http://www.petitionproject.org as of Jan., 2010 – had 31,486 scientist signatures, including 9,029 with Ph.Ds, disagreeing with anthropogenic global warming (the minimum qualifier to be on the petition is a BA in a field related to climate change.)

  3. In the event one needs yet another group of scientists banding together to state global warming is not a fact, review the signatories of the International Climate Science Coalition’s Manhattan Declaration of March, 2008 at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63. Finally, the Institute of Physics, which functions as a scientific charity, which has a worldwide membership of 36,000 has actually gone on record as questioning the whole field of climate change, stating the East Anglia ClimateGate scam emails “provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific tradition and freedom of information law.”

    In any event, relative to quotes from distinguished climatologists who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, here’s a partial list from http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6:
    .
    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
    .
    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
    .
    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
    .
    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
    .
    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
    .
    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
    .
    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
    .
    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
    .
    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
    .
    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
    .
    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
    .
    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
    .
    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
    .
    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
    .
    “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8039)
    .
    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA
    .
    .
    “Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/seasoned-veterans-view-of-ipcc.html, or http://www.Climategate.nl
    .
    Interestingly, even IPCC uber-warmer Ken Trenberth has stated “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”
    .
    Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University noted the “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming.” While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.”
    .
    “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I’ve studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don’t buy that, and I certainly know we don’t have any proof of it. I’m not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I’m very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079
    .
    Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch. Mr. Theon also noted in a Jan. 28, 2008 report that computer models used to determine future climate are not scientific, in part, because researchers resist “making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.” This violates a fundamental tenet of the scientific principle. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the “International Journal of Forecasting,” confirmed Theon’s statement, noting, “The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed,” and Theon and Armstrong both noted the 1995 IPPC report contained only opinions, no scientific forecasts, and revealed an audit of the procedures used to come to their conclusion “clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting,” with the forecasts following this one simply again repeating the same procedural errors. (Apparently, it was not only the French nobility of the 1700s of whom it might be said “they learned nothing, and they forgot nothing.)”
    .
    “Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.
    .
    Dr. William Gray, Colorado State Univ., also cited elsewhere in this paper, noted AGW is “the greatest scientific hoax of all time.”
    .
    “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” Prof. Martin Keeley, University College of London, cited from Newsmax Magazine March, 2010, p. 52
    .
    NASA and NOAA, which get a half billion dollars a year from the government, “have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature for years, making ‘global warming; look worse than it is.: Joe D’Aleo, American Meteorology Society fellow, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf
    .
    Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”
    .
    “The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.” Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

  4. Just one more set of quotes (from my 300 page paper on the subject of the AGW scam):

    “ Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” Shariv notes that “solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming” and greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant to the climate, stating if the amount of C02 doubled by 2100, it “will not dramatically increase the global temperature….” And “Even if we havle the C02 output, and the CO2 increates by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant” Dr. Nir, Shariv, top astrophysicist and assoc. professor at Hebrew Univ.
    .

    “Dr. Harold Lewis, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated about ClimateGate (exposing the outright fraud behind AGW), said he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.” http://tinyurl.com293enhl
    .

    “I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates….I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”
    - Dr. Dennis Jensen, only science Ph.D. in Australian parliament
    .
    “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
    - Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles
    - .

    “That letter is a criminal act against science, against open inquiry. Not only is the world in the hands of intellectual children, they are warring against real science, whose main pillar is open inquiry” by Claes-Göran Johnson in response to the letter by IPCC Vice-Chair Van Ypersele censoring Fred Singer and Johnson participating in a conference at SEII Foundation Universitaire in Brussels.
    .

    The famed Dr. Michael Crichton, another AGW doubter noted in his Senate testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works “In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid — and merits universal acceptance — only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It’s verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don’t. For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it’s permissible for raw data to be “touched,” or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.” Now it is apparent why the AGW types are running so scared from those simply wanting to exercise true science.
    .
    Dr. William Happer, physics professor at Princeton Univ. and member of the National Academy of Scientists: “Some 50 physicists have recently put together an open letter to our professional organization, the American Physical Society, asking them to moderate their statements on global warming… congress has been badly misinformed on the so-called science that supports the claim that increasing CO2 levels will bring about catastrophic climate change. CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is essential for life, and the world will probably be a better place (with it). The idea that Congress can stop climate change would be just hilarious if the actions they propose weren’t so damaging to the American people, and even more to the poorer people in the world.” Dr. Happer also noted the world has been cooling recently, and indicated the “intelligence” on AGW is about on par as was the intelligence that Iraq had WMDs
    .
    “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that the U.S. and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” – Dr. Diane Douglas, a climatologist who has worked for the Department of Energy
    .
    “I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science . . . There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.”
    — Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board who served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    ..
    “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice . . . The press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” — Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy.
    .
    “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit, not from man-made activities.” — Retired NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal
    .
    “The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.” Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, He also notes a switch in Pacific Ocean currents “assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest … the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977.”
    .
    “[W]hen data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data” to agree with models’ projections. MIT meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen.
    .
    Norwegian Ivar Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, and was one of Barack Obama’s leading scientific supporters during the 2008 president election campaign, now disagrees with Obama and told the UK’s Sunday Telegraph (regarding the APS stating global warming was incontrovertible): “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.” Giavar joined more than 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: “We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.” In subsequent communication with the APS, when he resigned over their global warming stance, he stated he “cannot live” with its official statement on global warming. He also questioned whether the average temperature of “the whole earth for a whole year” can be accurately measured, but contended that even if the results are accurate, they indicate the climate has actually been “amazingly stable” for 150 years. Giaver also noted “human health and happiness have definitely improved” over the so-called “warming period” of the last century and a half, and has testified to the US Senate about his doubts, calling himself a “sceptic” on global warming and citing both his birthplace and other scientific scares he has seen come and go during his career: “We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around….”Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money.” Several other members of the APS joined Giaver, writing the governing board “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” Last year, another APS sceptic, Hal Lewis, a University of California professor quit the group, describing global warming as a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud,” and stated AGW was “the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” Others who have agreed with Giavar are fellow Nobel Prize winner Robert B. Laughlin at Stanford; the late Norman Borlaug of Green Revolution fame; and the late Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at UC-Santa Barbara and another APS fellow. Professor Lewis resigned from this outfit last year, having had more than enough of its herdthink
    ..
    Similarly, the IPCC, according to Claude Allegre in his book L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), is “a mafia-like system” and promotes a “baseless myth” about climate change. . Allegre is considered by many to be France’s most celebrated scientist and a former Science Minister in one of France’s socialist governments.
    .
    John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and a forecaster on KUSI in San Diego, has called global warming a “hoax” and “bad science” and stated “We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways… Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas….” While AccuWeather senior forecaster Joe Bastardi says. “Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or anyone else, but go look for yourself.”
    Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data “show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise….The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth’s future.”
    .
    Officials at NOAA who are flogging global warming are, according to Dr. William Gray, “handling the data in ways to obtain data that shows the globe is warming more than it really is… They drop certain data out of their averaging, and the data they’ve dropped out tends to make the globe cooler (i.e., they are eliminating the data that shows cooling). Dr.Gray concludes that “the climate is not changing much” and “From 1999 on, there hasn’t been much of a warming trend. In the last two or three years, we have been seeing around the globe slightly colder winters, and I think that’s an indication that human-induced global warming that’s so talked about is really not progressing… There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from the global warming hypothesis and they want to convince the world that this is true. Those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.”
    .
    “The truth, and this is frustrating for policymakers, is that scientists’ ignorance of the climate system is enormous. There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent work to do.” John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, quoted from Nature.
    .
    “It has become completely political — it’s not about science at all. If science were the objective, then we would be seeing an entirely different debate. But there are agendas at play, and it has undermined the credibility of climate science.” Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist, WDAF, in email to Kansas City Star.
    .
    “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s (note: Dr. Trenberth is a leading AGW advocate, and one of those implicated in the ClimateGate scandal) actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” National Hurricane Center’s chief scientist Chris Landsea , who resigned his post in protest of actions by Trenberth.and other wamers
    ..
    “It is easy to create the illusion of consensus when those who disagree are silenced…It is not known what the majority of scientists think about global warming, not that it matters all that much. Science is not about counting votes. However, I can offer an anecdotal observation. I am a scientist, while my wife is a professor of art history. Her colleagues generally think all scientists support Mr. Gore – after all, they have been so informed by such authoritative sources as the New York Times. My fellow doctorate-holding science colleagues generally share my conclusion: The claim that human activity has appreciably warmed our planet is the greatest political hoax ever…When the global-warming hoax eventually collapses, the victim will be science. When science suffers, we all suffer.” Leonard Evans, who has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University, is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects
    .
    Former NASA physicist Edward Long has stated NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s favorite scientist, Dr. James Hansen, had been modifying data, “lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past.” Intentional manipulation of data is not exactly what one might call “science!”
    .
    A top echelon U.S. scientist Hal Lewis resigned in revulsion (his words) Oct., 2010, from the American Physical Society over the fraud of global warming, stating “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist….”
    .

    Japanese engineers also had the temerity to announce global warming is a fraud, as the S&A Digest reported in its Feb. 26, 2008 email: “The Japan Society of Energy and Resources issued a report that says global warming is related to solar activity, and the rise in global temperatures was primarily a recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, which lasted… to 1800. Kanya Kusano, program director for the Earth simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, says computer climate modeling used to support the manmade global warming theory is like ‘ancient astrology.’”
    .
    Joe Bastardi of Accuweather has stated “ICE not fire may be the bigger worry for causing hardship on the planets life by 2030.” (See his blog at http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp)
    .

    Dr. William Gray, the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State Univ, mentioned elsewhere in this paper, has also noted the “warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.” Dr. Gray goes on to note in this article that “Rising levels of CO2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be an honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO2′s influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy. The last century’s global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe’s temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age – when, for example, even into March, 1717, houses in Massachussets had so much snow single story houses were buried – and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period.” In January, 2010, Dr. Gray stated his opinion on the modest warming of starting in the late 1970s, stating “‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. “Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent” ” and noted while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect In fact, if you want a cut/paste website for journalists who know nothing about science or global warming, just go to Society of Environmental Journalists, and et voila! There’s your story. No muss, no fuss, and no messy honest inquiry!
    Dr. Gray has also stated, in an essay circulated on climate blogs, that “We AMS (American Meteorological Assoc.) have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers and C02 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank and file members might think.” And what do AMS rank and file think? A 2009 survey found that amongst TV weather forecasters in its membership, only 19% agreed with the statement that “global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming planet.” Fifty percent disagreed with that statement that “Most of the human warming since the 1950s is very likely human induced” – or basically agreeing with Dr. Gray, that, as Al Gore presents it, “global warming is a scam.”

    • My father is a meloroetogist (a real one, not a TV news model) and has spent his entire adult life studying the climate of the world and has seen no evidence of the drastic global warming that Al Gore has put out. However, since the Sun is expanding, there is a slight degree of warming that we cannot control. Yeah, global warming exists, but it is much less drastic than what most people say and cannot be stopped.

  5. Hi there, I desire to subscribe for this blog to obtain most recent
    updates, so where can i do it please help out.

    Feel free to surf to my site; Judson

  6. Amazing! Its actually remarkable post, I have got much clear idea regarding from this article.

    my webpage – stop snoring mouthpiece walmart – thelastelijah.com -

  7. Some moms love to use that period you just read a magazine, or look at a
    blog. If you added the application form previously,
    look for your “Account” area at the top right corner of your respective page.

    I’m without doubt the majority of us who wish cash have eventually considered a variety of other ways to spice up their incomes.

    Visit my weblog; free rewards programs

  8. I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also visit this webpage on regular basis to take updated from hottest reports.

    Feel free to surf to my website buy iphone 5 32gb

  9. Great web site you have here.. It’s hard to find high quality writing like yours nowadays. I truly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>