Friday, October 22, 2010

Biodiversity Replaces Climate Change as the Weapon for Political Control

*******
*******
The Next Two Articles:
David Suzuki published the next two articles on "Climate Change" on his blogsite and supports the scientists who claim that climate change is man-made.
In the second article, Suzuki states, "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries." I saw a red flag on that statement immediately. United Nations? David, David, David. How misinformed do you think we are? The United Nations was organized by communists, is an instrument of the New World Order, and has already gained control of our most precious land; our national parks, our national geographical eco-systems, and will one day refuse us, the citizens of this country, the right to enter these parks as they will be preserved for the joy and entertainment of the elite.
Some would say I am biased and I only present one side of the argument and to that statement, I would have to agree. In most cases, the other side's viewpoint is so ridiculous that I just don't want to bother. However, today I am making an exception. But enough rambling on, I'll let you judge the worth of the articles on this blog for yourself. Plus, anything that you have doubts about, whatever side of the issue you are looking at, I would suggest that you do your own research and resolve your skepticism.
*******
Guest Post: Luke Doucet shares his thoughts on climate change
January 25, 2011
[Left: Musician Luke Doucet believes trusting science is essential for any climate change discussion (Credit: EVIL Patrick)]
Luke Doucet is a Hamilton-based singer-songwriter-guitar player who has recently been touring with his band, the White Falcon, for the release of the band's latest album, Steel City Trawler. He has also played guitar for Sarah McLachlan and other well-known Canadian musicians and was bandleader of the "experimental post-surf-rock indie" band Veal.
He believes that being an artist carries with it a responsibility to communicate to audiences about socio-political issues.
"As a singer-songwriter, my thoughts on various socio-political themes tend to inform my work, so it only makes sense that I would consider those themes carefully," he said in an email interview. "Having an audience does carry with it a responsibility to communicate as thoughtfully as possible, especially if the content of your work is at times topical."
Being on tour also has him thinking about the environment. "As musicians, we do consider environmental choices in our daily lives, although as the recording industry continues to wane, the touring component of what we do has taken centre stage, and touring—especially in Canada—is environmentally challenged."
But it's not just being a musician that compels him to speak out about the "misguided mistrust of science and rationalism ... encouraged by the mainstream media in the U.S., in particular". "As a father, I think we owe it to our children to make an effort to leave this place as we found it... or better," he said.
In between gigs, Luke Doucet took the time to write his thoughts about climate change to share in this David Suzuki Foundation guest blog.
By Luke Doucet
The New Year is upon us. The Cancun Climate Conference came and went. Targets have been altered, ignored, contested; backs got slapped, platitudes exchanged. Canada's obstructionist policies have been derided by progressive realists far and wide as we again deferred to our conservative neighbours to the south by hitching our wagon to their far more cumbersome and ideologically driven horse. With the house of representatives now firmly in GOP control, we can only expect the policies we have committed to hiding behind to be more regressive and denier-friendly than they were in the past few years—to say nothing of the past decade.
Since our current government has chosen not to exercise our national autonomy and sovereignty by honouring the Kyoto protocol (or at least providing a true alternative (i.e., "made in Canada" solution) but instead to linger in the shadow of U.S. policy, we need to examine why that policy appears so reluctant to recognize the catastrophe that climate change almost certainly is. In the wake of the so-called "climategate" scandal, we have seen the wholesale character assassination of a community that ought to be valued as our strongest and most trustworthy when trying to decipher reality from the barrage of talking heads and 24-hour news cycle pundits, particularly when attempting to establish basic truths regarding science. The precedent that has been set—being that it is now generally acceptable to scoff at science and scientists as if they were just another group with a self serving vested interest—is terribly misguided and damaging.
The scientists at the heart of climategate have been cleared of any wrongdoing, and any serious person would have to recognize that we are (still) right back where we were pre-climategate: the Earth is warming and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the cause is anthropogenic (human-caused). When scientists from the University of East Anglia were exonerated in summer 2010, that story was reported in the usual places. The Huffington Post, the Globe & Mail, the Guardian, and others ran stories, but the mainstream media in the U.S. largely ignored, or at least buried, this news event. If the population at large was bombarded with as much media surrounding the exoneration as they were surrounding the initial witch-hunt, public opinion would be very different and so then would be U.S. climate policy.
Even "progressives" in our midst are now prone to suggesting things like "Well, science isn't the holy grail. It constantly changes and one's faith in science is comparable to another's faith in religion," for example. I have been hearing such things with enough regularity that I can only conclude the PR campaign being waged by industries committed to the status quo (oil, gas, automotive, religion, etc.) is far more sinister and effective than we may be aware. What is needed is the restoration of dignity to the only institutions, people, and—most significantly—methodologies that are capable of separating what IS from what IS NOT in the arena of climate and the degree to which it may—or may not—be changing. And they are all, without exception, operating in the realm of science. The emphasis on findings and interpretations by actual experts has never been so essential. We live in a time when every one of us can find what appears to be solid evidence for whichever position we choose to take. Two minutes with a search engine will yield mountains of "evidence" for everything from ESP to religious miracles to conspiracies of all kinds. While this can be seen to have a democratizing effect on the exchange of ideas, it only makes pseudo science that much more dangerous and attractive to us, the lay people.
Let us suppose that the scientists from the University of East Anglia had truly fudged numbers and willfully deceived people, rather than simply use language that, when taken out of context, had the appearance of deception. Would that constitute a game-changing indictment of the findings of the overwhelming majority of the global climate science community and therefore relegate the findings of the IPCC to the annals of junk science? No. For one, we are talking about a tiny group of scientists among thousands. The National Academies of Science in virtually all of the world's developed countries agree that climate change is happening and is anthropogenic. For two, what would have been evident if accusations of number fudging were founded at all would simply be that humans are fallible. We get politicized and fired up, and sometimes we are partisan before impartial. If there were legitimacy behind "climategate", all we would know is that climate scientists are as prone to manipulating data as those on the payrolls of multinational corporations, who pay them huge sums of money to "find" evidence that business as usual is fine and we need not act in haste to clean up our mess.
Those on the right side of the political/environmental divide have presented the following as a motive for scientists to lie en mass about climate change: They are all part of a massive conspiracy of burying the truth so as to continue pursuing and collecting government grants.
I find this especially baffling as I cannot see what the incentive might be for governments to desire an alarmist global warming conclusion. Why would governments award grants to those who find evidence for anthropogenic climate change? We now find ourselves in the most vulnerable economic time since the 1920s. What could our government possibly stand to gain by adding billions of dollars worth of environmental regulations and conditions to our already embattled manufacturing and resource industries? It is plain that elected officials would be far more interested in finding that everything is okay; we don't need to revamp our auto sector; we don't need to replace coal power stations with expensive alternative energy sources; we needn't bother building bike lanes in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or Calgary because cars and cities and futures are just fine as they are. Surely in the worst economic times in a century, "business as usual" would be the most desirable conclusion the world's democratic governments could reach.
Science has not yielded bullet-proof findings in all disciplines because scientists are human, fallible, imperfect, and constantly learning and changing conclusions as data and evidence reveal new realities. Certain elements of climate science are inconclusive because the issue is massively complex, and data, while not difficult to collect (temperature records, ice cores, etc.) may be challenging to understand. We are on an endless path of scientific inquiry: People once accepted the world to be flat, then round, now asymmetrically spherical, or slightly pear shaped. We will learn many things in the future that seem unlikely to us now, but it is not a flaw in science itself that will be to blame for our ignorance. Rather, it is to the credit of science that we learn the things we once thought were inconceivable. We must revere not the scientists or their current findings but rather the methodology that, by definition, requires discoveries and theories to be reviewed by peers and reproduced in tightly controlled environments whenever possible.
Science is without question the only method we have to determine what IS in the physical world. Religion can't do it. The "free market" has the potential to encourage curiosity but corporate charters often dictate that the bottom line takes precedent over all other considerations and therefore often provides a clear motive to play fast and loose with the truth. Comparing science with other disciplines when trying to determine what qualifies as physical reality is to deny both the legacy that science continues to leave (endless cures and inventions, etc.) and also to deny its most carefully wrought definition: "the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Science is not one of many choices one has to consider when trying to decide what is credible in the physical world. Science is the very definition of that inquiry. We must restore dignity and respect to this institution. We must not allow the mainstream U.S. media to lump science in with the supernatural, the political, or the economic as if we had a number of equally plausible choices when trying to wade through the shallow sea of competing ideologies and special interests that may all be affected by the denouement of the climate change discussion. We do not. There is but one method to employ. It is the scientific method and no conclusion has any credibility without employing it.
*******
Climate change deniers
David Suzuki
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
Who are the climate change deniers?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.
Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.
While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system.
Learn more:
Who are the deniers?
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Merchants of Doubt
'Some Like It Hot' — Mother Jones article on climate change skeptics
Responding to Global Warming Skeptics — Prominent Skeptics Organizations
DesmogBlog.com's Disinformation Database
'The Denial Machine' — CBC's the fifth estate program
Who funds the deniers?
What Exxon doesn't want you to know
ExxonSecrets: How ExxonMobil funds the climate change deniers
'Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank' — Mother Jones article on ExxonMobil funding
The science of climate change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change
RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change — Science Magazine
The Science of Global Warming — Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate change reporting in the media
Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
'Snowed' — Mother Jones article about the media's reporting on climate change
'The Fossil Fools' by George Monbiot
More information
DeSmogBlog.com — Excellent blog on the deniers
Skeptical Science.com — Database and refutation of common skeptic arguments
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptic arguments Grist.org
Editorial on stolen climate change emails — Nature Journal
A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear
'Hostile Climate' On Bjorn Lomborg and climate change
Recent news stories on deniers
NOTE: For the links go to the original blogsite:
*******
*******
Scientific Reaction To Velikovsky Symptomatic Of Climate Science Debacle
Rapid spread and lack of understanding of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory occurred because it quickly became part of school curricula
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Many years ago a colleague approached the President of the University with our plan to hold a conference on the ideas of Immnauel Velikovsky. He angrily rejected the plan saying he would not allow anything on campus associated with that charlatan. The President was a physicist and Velikovsky had challenged prevailing scientific views. In some ways it doesn’t matter whether Velikovsky was right or wrong. The problem was the reprehensible actions of the scientific community. His treatment holds many lessons for today’s debate over climate change.
Complexity of the corruption by the few scientists who hijacked climate science is revealed by comparison. They quickly established their views as the prevailing ‘truth’ through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science, but also misusing basic science. They isolated anyone who challenged either part of their false science in the same way Velikovsky was marginalized.
Dogma Replaces Dogma
Western science and religion battled for hundreds of years. Many conflicts involved new ideas and their final victories were considered turning points in the fight for people’s beliefs. In winning, science became more dogmatic than the religion it replaced. Gradually the focus shifted from a conflict with religion to rejection of new ideas by practitioners of the prevailing scientific views.
Historically, new scientific ideas were vigorously resisted and their proponents attacked by religion. That comment is now true within science. Usually most people don’t care or don’t understand the significance of the new ideas. Copernicus put the Sun at the centre of our solar system, but it doesn’t matter for most as long as the sun rises and sets. A critical change in the adoption and infiltration of ideas came with extension of government-controlled education. From kindergarten through university it became indoctrination not education.
Graduation is allowed once you’ve demonstrated a grasp of the current ‘truths’. Questioning those truths pose a threat to your assessment and even progress. The quandary is this contradicts advancement of knowledge and understanding, especially of science. Consider the general reaction to Gore’s comment about global warming theory that “the science is settled.”
Rapid spread and lack of understanding of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory occurred because it quickly became part of school curricula. This was exacerbated because knowledge of science is necessary, but the subject was mostly covered in social sciences. It reflects the political nature of the subject and resulted in extensive indoctrination of ignorance. Graduates of this ignorance now control education, science and politics at all levels.
The Velikovsky Affair
Velikovsky was a Russian medical doctor with a lifelong interest in providing possible explanations for events recorded in historic records. A multi-linguist, he read original works from several middle-eastern cultures. He was on sabbatical in the US researching a book when World War II began. He stayed and began producing works on what the establishment categorized as catastrophism. Putting him in that category is part of the attack on his ideas from mainstream scientists. Consider the pejorative nature of this quote from Wikipedia. “Velikovsky began to develop the radical catastrophist cosmology and revised chronology theories for which he would become notorious.”
Why “radical” or “notorious”, these are judgmental adjectives used because he dared to suggest there is another interpretation of the evidence.
His views became problematic when Macmillan published Worlds in Collision in 1950. The book immediately became a best seller. There were several problems for establishment thinking.
Catastrophic events were contrary to the prevailing philosophy of uniformitarianism.
He was trained in medicine not geology or astronomy.
He was Russian, a serious problem in the McCarthy era.
He dared to suggest that historical records were of actual events – an idea problematic in climate science even today.
Worse he used the Bible as a source of evidence. Wikipedia comments again show the bias. “Even before its appearance, the book was enveloped by furious controversy, when Harper’s Magazine published a highly positive feature on it, as did Reader’s Digest with what would today be called a creationist slant.” Ah, the dreaded anti-science word creationism.
He was not indoctrinated by formal education in academic science – the bastions of dogmatism and intellectual tunnel vision.
His ideas did not conform to established astronomical views on planetary motion.
He published his ideas in popular magazines and trade books that went directly to the public who might challenge official science.
He followed success of World’s in Collision with another bestseller Ages in Chaos.
His work was interdisciplinary at a time of specialization. Worse, it blended science with the humanities and the social sciences.
Velikovsky’s story is fascinating but my focus is on the reactions of the establishment, especially of Harlow Shapley. He had a checkered career apparently shaped by his rigid thinking and personal animosities. After graduating from Princeton he worked at the Mount Wilson Observatory then Harvard College Observatories. He attended the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, which is at best a most pointed title. He was influential in forming government funded science institutions including the National Academy of Sciences. The latter has an ignominious part in the global warming debacle.
Macmillan was the only publisher in history who surrendered a best seller at peak sales. Shapely denied any involvement in the action. Velikovsky subsequently exposed his role in a letter to the Harvard Crimson.
Macmillan was vulnerable to Shapley’s threats of curtailing academic textbooks because that was their major source of income. As with all these matters the action is blameworthy, but the cover up compounds the error. Velikovsky discusses the events in Stargazers and Gravediggers.
Velikovsky’s major ideas built on the claim that Earth has experienced natural global disasters throughout its history. The major cause of natural catastrophes was brushes with other objects in the solar system and beyond. It’s probably thanks to Velikovsky that Walter and Luis Alvarez were able to propose the claim that a collision with an asteroid 65 million years ago led to the extinction of dinosaurs. The father/son connection serendipitously allowed cross-discipline discussion between physics and geology. The intellectual isolation of specialization has undermined the ability to understand.
Science Is The Ability To Predict
In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect.
Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
*******
*******
On climate change, Canada (finally) comes clean
Norman Spector
Globe and Mail Update
Published Saturday, Dec. 04, 2010
On Wednesday, Montreal French-language newspaper Le Devoir reported a remarkable development in the climate change file: “Japan won't agree to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 even if that means isolating itself at the UN climate change talks next week in Cancun, Mexico, a senior Japanese negotiator said [last week].”
And, the same day, its more affluent competitor, La Presse, quoted Hideki Minamikawa – a deputy minister for global environmental affairs at Japan’s Environment Ministry – as follows: “Even if the Kyoto Protocol's extension becomes a major item on the agenda at Cancun and Japan finds itself isolated over it, Japan will not agree to it … The biggest problem is that an agreement has not been reached on a framework in which all major emitters will participate.”
In La Presse, the headline on the article read: “Japan turns its back on Kyoto,” while Le Devoir headlined, “Japan tosses Kyoto in the garbage can.” In either case, this was big climate change news and, by Thursday, the story had made its way into English in the Guardian.
By Saturday, that paper – which has its hands full with WikiLeaks these days – was reporting:
“The UN climate talks in Cancún were in danger of collapse last night after many Latin American countries said that they would leave if a crucial negotiating document, due to be released tomorrow, did not continue to commit rich countries to emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol….The potential crisis was provoked by Japan stating earlier this week that it would not sign up to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Other countries, including Russia, Canada and Australia are thought to agree but have yet to say publicly that they will not make further pledges.”
The Guardian correspondent, John Vidal, must have missed the press conference of Christiana Figueres, who is chairing the Cancun conference. As Le Devoir reports from that conference:
“Yesterday, Canada stirred a veritable commotion [in Cancun] by aligning itself with Japan to block the extension of the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012 – an extension that would see a new period of obligatory reductions in greenhouse gases agreed to by the 36 parties to the treaty.
It was the chair of the conference herself, Christiana Figueres, who confirmed the identity of the three countries opposed to extending Kyoto beyond 2012. She spelled out that Russia, the final country to have ratified Kyoto – thereby giving it international binding legal effect – had joined with Japan and Canada to form what from now will be known as the ‘Group of Three.’”
I expect that, before too long, Canadian readers of English language newspapers, too, will be reading the outraged reaction to this development of the groups that have regularly been awarding fossils to Canada. Yet, as my esteemed fellow blogger Bruce Anderson pointed out the other day, most Canadians will not be overly shocked that the Harper government is refusing to extend a climate change treaty that did not include Brazil or India, for example – not to speak of the world’s two greatest emitters, China and the United States. A treaty that the Chrétien government signed without doing any impact studies.
After signing on the dotted line, with no realistic prospect of implementing this treaty, the Chrétien government and its successors virtually ignored its provisions, thereby leaving Canadian taxpayers exposed to billions of dollars in penalties if the treaty manages to survive. That this looks increasingly doubtful today is good news for Canada. It will be unmitigated good news if it spurs delegates at Cancun to redouble their efforts to forge a treaty that includes 192, not 36, parties to replace it.
*******
Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface
Interface, Climate Change IPCC's political conclusions
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface.
Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated.
Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems. Movement of heat from within the earth is different primarily because of circulation. Solar energy penetrates up to 50 meters into the ocean while it hardly penetrates the soil at all. It takes much more energy to raise the temperature of water than land, but it also cools much slower. Rates of evaporation that is molecules of water that are given enough velocity by heat energy to escape the surface, are also very different. There is an unlimited supply of molecules in the oceans. Since this is the major source of energy transfer to the atmosphere, it is critical to weather and climate.
Figure 1 shows atmospheric layers. It shows the boundaries (interfaces) above the surface, such as the Tropopause and the Stratopause but leaves out the major critical interface between the atmosphere and the earth. These boundaries separate by temperature, but you can use other measures. The term atmosphere is an example because it encompasses the entire region to the edge of space and is different from the lithosphere and hydrosphere. It also includes the thinnest but most important zone, the biosphere. It is a very narrow zone that contains virtually all life on the planet yet is mostly within a few meters of the surface. What happens here is critical to weather and climate as Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) recognized in his remarkable work Climate Near The Ground, published in 1950. In weather and climate research it is akin to the Boundary Layer and an early book by R. E. Munn identified its dynamics and importance.
*******
Figure 1: Atmosphere layers determined by temperature and pressure
*******
A measure of the failure of modern climate science is that there is a Wikipedia entry for Geiger but it is a single line and asks for expansion.
His book has been updated and a sixth edition with two other authors is now available. Others like Sellers and Oke produced useful research, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignore the entire issue. They make an incorrect understatement. Temperature changes are one of the more obvious and easily measured changes in climate, but atmospheric moisture, precipitation and atmospheric circulation also change, as the whole system is affected.
No, temperatures may be obvious but they are not an easily measured change in climate. The comment also fails to acknowledge that changes in temperature are a direct input to changes in the other variables.
Officially, but incorrectly, it’s called the surface temperature. Actually, it is atmospheric temperature in a ventilated box called a Stevenson Screen that can be between 1.25 and 2 meters above the surface. The significance of this is shown in a graph (Figure 2) of temperatures. Those at 2.5 centimeters are quite different in degree and daily range than even 1.2 meters. This converts to dramatically different monthly and annual averages that are climate. For example, one station in Ohio had a full 90 days difference in the length of the frost-free season at the ground or at 1.5 meters. A crop such as barley can grow in that length of time.
Apart from heat exchange at the surface there is the issue of evaporation. The atmosphere is heated in three different ways. First is conduction as molecules of air touching the surface are heated by direct contact. Second is convection as these heated molecules rise by convection or are moved away by the wind (advection). Third, and the most important but underestimated way, especially in the tropics, is evaporation. The latter is directly determined by temperature right at the surface not 1.5 meter above.
*******
Figure 2: Daily range of temperatures at different heights in summer
Source: Oliver and Hidore, After Geiger 1950.
*******
All the discussion and measures are about bare surfaces, but it is never that simple. Changes in the color and the texture make a difference. Most life forms are within that 1.5 meters; add vegetation and it changes the entire dynamics. In a bizarre instruction, an early technical report for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said: in order to set up a weather station for a forest you begin by clearing a 200 meter site. Of course, you’re no longer measuring the weather or determining the climate of a forest.
Change wind speed, and the dynamics change becoming even more complicated. Vegetation makes it especially difficult over land. This is matched by the complications of changes in the ocean surface with
everything from ripples to large waves altering the surface area and angle at which sunlight strikes. The list of complications goes on and on. For example, what happens to global energy when snow covers large areas of the northern hemisphere and varies in extent from year to year? Or how snow is deeper in vegetated areas? Do they consider the heat energy that passes through polar sea ice to warm the atmosphere?
Gases moving across the interface are critical to climate research. We have few and only recent measures. As a 2006 report noted, “In the last few years, more and more research has focused on the biosphere; particularly, on how gases which influence the climate are exchanged between the biosphere and atmosphere.” They were amazed to find how much methane was released from the rainforest.
There are virtually no studies for deserts, grasslands or tundra. For example, we know oceans are critical to amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Surface station numbers are inadequate and they’re not measuring what is necessary for understanding changes in weather and climate. But none of this is important to the IPCC who only wants the results to support the political conclusion.
*******
New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau
Long List of Flaws in Climate Science Methods
By John O’Sullivan and Val Majkus
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
*******
*******
Global warmers is in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as a new study shows one third of temperatures are not reliable.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that “since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C”; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis.
Barnham, who spent 8 years working in emerging South Asian economies building high volume transaction processing systems, applied a high-tech statistical technique very different from an earlier well-publicized probe by fellow Aussie, Ken Stewart on his blog, Ken’s Kingdom.
Stewart grabbed headlines in what became known as the AustraliaGate controversy after his findings were featured on popular science blog, Watts Up With That. Stewart exposed dubious BOM adjustments to temperature data that bore little or no resemblance to actual or raw past temperatures.
Like Stewart, Barnham paid particular attention to BOM’s methodology in addressing what is known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI), a proven phenomenon whereby thermometers measuring temperatures in towns and cities become unduly influenced by extra ‘background’ heating from buildings, road surfaces, machinery, etc. It’s in the UHI adjustments that the greatest discrepancies appear to lie.
BOM Errors in the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect
A chastened BOM is now starting to questions its own UHI adjustments. A recent BOM media release
referring to a paper presented at the Australia - New Zealand Climate Forum in Hobart (October 14, 2010) admits it formulated its calculations incorrectly.
BOM concedes that daytime temperatures in Aussie cities are warming more rapidly than those of the
surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves. In effect, the admission undermines all prior claims that such warming is principally due to man-made emissions trumpeted in the similarly discredited “greenhouse gas theory.”
Skeptical researchers have long argued that little or no weighting has properly been ascribed to the UHI phenomenon; this apparent U-turn may signal the demise of the now discredited official adjusted Australian temperature record.
Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, admits “we’ve known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat’s retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too. But what we didn’t know was whether city daytime temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect. We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer.”
See the full discussion on BOM’s belated discovery on the excellent WUWT blog.
‘Homogenization’—that Euphemism for Data Fudge
In February 2010 John O’Sullivan published an article, ‘Australiagate: NASA Caught in Trick over Aussie Climate Data’ that drew attention to the fact that spuriously warmed Aussie climate data was being trumpeted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With these latest findings Barnham says, “My results raise a number of issues with the quality of the data and supporting analysis provided by BOM.” Readers are encouraged to compare Barnham’s findings published on joannenova.com.au with those of Stewart.
*******
*******
Barnham is damning about the so-called “artifacts” of BOM’s homogenization process. The process of homogenization is when researchers use their own judgment to subjectively fill gaps where no raw detail is available to complete a temperature data set.
It is in this gray area that climatologists may have intentionally or unintentionally ramped up the misleading UHI secondary warming effect. Thereby their calculations would show a broader (non-existent) warming trend across the whole of Australia.
Long List of Flaws in Climate Science Methods
In an earlier independent study, Ken Stewart compared BOM’s so-called “High Quality’ (adjusted) temperature data with the raw (unadjusted) data derived from weather stations and found there was little, if anything “high quality” in the official figures. Stewart identified the following failings:
Data had been subjectively and manually adjusted
The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described
Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included
Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates
The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record
The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does
The warming bias in the temperature trend is over 40%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%
The trend published by BOM is 66% greater than that of the raw data.
Like Barnham Stewart analyzed the “homogenizations” in the urban records and what shocked him was that the urban records were adjusted to create a 70% warming trend not borne out by the raw data.
Deliberate Fraud or Plain Incompetence?
Barnham identifies that up to 40% of the ‘homogenized’ data is pure ‘guesswork’ and adds, “Of the remaining 60%-80% what precise component can be directly attributed to global human emissions remains uncertain.” However, more outspoken critics suggest foul play because the entire set of adjusted temperatures all point one way- upwards.
The public first became aware of gross incompetence or intentional climate fraud from the leaked Climategate emails (November 2009). Those revelations showed that international climate researchers were long aware of the shocking state of Australia’s temperature data. Most pertinent of those emails was found in the ‘documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ files.
One government scientist ‘Harry’ Harris was so exasperated he admitted:
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data, so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references, so many changes that aren’t documented… “
‘Harry’ then later adds, “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was.”
Climategate Devil Hidden in the Details
We can see ‘Harry’s’ fears were entirely well founded when we study BOM’s ‘The State of the Climate Report’ (at page 1). Here we see BOM make the following unsupportable claim:
‘Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 ¬∞C. The long term trend in temperature is clear but there is still substantial year to year variability of about plus/minus 0.5 ¬∞C. Some areas have experienced a warming of 1.5 to 2 ¬∫C over the last 50 years.’
Refuting those numbers Ken Stewart says, ‘The raw trend is about 0.4C (actually slightly less than 0.4C) - that’s a full 0.2C less than the non-urban raw trend using the same comparison; the adjusted trend is about 0.78C: and that’s a warming bias of 95%. (The 70% figure is based on averaging all the changes in trends- from the table of 34 towns; 95% is from plotting the average temperature for all sites each year, then calculating the trend from this average. It’s a way of comparing at the large scale. It removes much of the error.) Stewart concludes:
The raw data and the adjusted data both show much less warming than the non-urban sites.
Many of the sites show distinct cooling, especially in southeast Australia.
The data has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
Sites with poor comparative data have been included.
Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the temperature record of many of the sites.
The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is between roughly 0.3 degree Celsius and 0.38 degree Celsius per 100 years greater than the raw data does.
The warming bias in the temperature trend is from 60% to 95% depending on the comparison method.
Stewart’s full analysis can be found on his ‘Kenskingdom’ website (starting with Queensland).
Affirming Stewart’s stance Des Moore (‘Climate Inquiry Now’) writing on the State of the Climate Report comments, “no evidence is adduced to support a clear long term trend and no qualifications are made to the 0.7 increase since 1960.”
Moore then details his criticism by adding,
“As to the latter, the increase of about 0.6 of a degree in 1976-77 from the Great Pacific Climate Shift is generally acknowledged as a naturally induced change. And any claim that the 0.7 increase reflects increased CO2 emissions would have to explain why published Australian temperatures show no increase before 1960 (from 1910) whereas global temperatures and emissions do; and related to that whether there is a warmist bias in the “adjustments” made to raw temperature data to produce what the Bureau claims to be “high quality” results.”
Further Questionable ‘Facts’ of the BOM
Another 2010 report ‘Climate Change in Queensland’ published by The Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence (at page 24 referring to figures sourced from BOM) says,
“The average surface temperature in Queensland has risen by almost 0.9 ¬∞C since early last century ... ... The decade 2000‚Äì2009 was the hottest on record for Queensland, 0.58 ¬∞C higher than the 1961‚Äì1990 average.”
The above statement is wrong when the raw data is scrutinized. Stewart says for Queensland, the average surface temperature has risen only 0.6 degrees since 1910. Stewart found that 2000-2009 was 0.42 degrees warmer than 1961-1990; 2000 and 2001 were both below the 30-year mean. The hottest year was 2005 but 1973, 1980 and 1988 were nearly as hot and 1915 and 1926 were as hot as 2002 and 2003.
Earlier Aussie Temperatures Shunted Down, Later Numbers Ramped Up
Barnham and Stewart have both shown that the raw data demonstrates there is no distinct warming trend in Australia. Both their sets of analyses do point to the official adjusted temperatures published for Australia being too low in the early part of last century so that the resultant warming “trend” is overstated.
Like a ‘see-saw’ the official record appears to arbitrarily push down older temperatures to make the climate appear cooler, but then ramps up recent readings to create the impression of a distinct warming trend that doesn’t otherwise exist.
The official report from ‘The South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative’ based on research carried out by CSIRO and BOM also released this year (at page 22) states ‘the temperature of southeastern Australia (as over most of Australia) has been rising in recent decades. The warmest year since 1910 was 2007 and every year since 1996 has been warmer than the 1961-1990 mean.’
However, Stewart correctly points out:
”For Australia as a whole, 2009 was warmer than 2007; 1988 was as hot as 2005 and 2007; every year since 1996 was indeed hotter than the 30 year mean; however the raw data for Queensland and Australia as a whole shows the mean temperature since 1910 has increased only 0.6 C.’
Stewart says for South Eastern Australia 2007 was the warmest but 2004 was below the 30 year mean; however the warming bias in South Eastern Australia High Quality data is 75% over 100 years; the raw trend is only 0.4C, High Quality adjusted is 0.7 (over 100 years). There’s no acceleration looking at the raw data - the steepest warming appears to be 1940s ‚Äì1980.
Referring to Barnham’s findings Stewart says,
“We both get a warming bias in High Quality data- Andrew’s is 0.72 raw to 0.94 adjusted against mine 0.6 to 0.85. I’m willing to bet his is better. He still finds a warming bias of 30%. A neutral or cooling result would have been inconsistent with my findings.”
Oz to Follow Kiwis and Abandon Pretense of Bona Fide Climate Record?
Because of BOM’s dubious subjectivity in their High Quality ‘adjusted’ data, what is being found time and again is that official results consistently show a warming bias regardless of the trends shown by the raw temperatures, even when the raw temperatures indicate cooling!
Independent studies now emphatically disprove the BOM claim that there has been warming of 0.1C degrees per decade. Des Moore in his Quadrant article says, “What is needed is a published paper by the BOM explaining the basis on which adjustments have been made to the raw data in Australia.”
It seems reasonable to agree with his argument that it is entirely right and proper that BOM should now publish a paper explaining the basis on which adjustments have been made to the raw data in Australia.
Stewart, Barnham and other critics are demanding a full scientific enquiry, independent of BOM and an end to BOM’s so-called “High Quality” adjustments based on urban myth methodology.
Failing that readers may recall from last month, it was only when Kiwi skeptics pursued the strident legal tactic of taking the government to court that New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) disowned all notion of an “official” national temperature record.
*******
IPCC Climate Science Is Fundamentally Wrong: Carbon Footprint is All Wet
It was corruption of science to support a political agenda
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, November 8, 2010
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science deliberately kept public focus on warmer temperatures and blamed it all on radiative forcing due to CO2. They virtually ignore water in all its forms, partly because terms of reference directed them to only human causes and because any consideration of the role of water destroys the CO2 hypothesis.
Water explains many elements of weather as reflected in the response of plants and animals, but they even perverted that evidence.
Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ deliberately rewrote history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted the false claim the world was the warmest ever. It was corruption of science to support a political agenda. Lost in the furor was the false assumption that tree growth was only about temperature. In reality, the most important growth factor is precipitation and available moisture. If Mann and others involved with the climate science debacle knew anything about climate, or were doing honest science, they would know this.
Classification: Sort The Data
Carolus Linnaeus’ classification system that named, ranked and classified organisms was a major advance in biology. Vladimir Koppen produced a climate classification system in 1884 that named ranked and classified climates based on the distribution of plants.
In the simplest form of classification there are nine major climate zones (Figure 1). Zones 1, 3, 7 and 9 are singular with similar weather conditions all year influenced by one major control mechanism. The others, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are mixed weather conditions because they’re under different control mechanisms as the seasons change.
*******
Figure 1: Which region are you in?
*******
Koppen created a system around these basic divisions based on average annual precipitation, average monthly temperature and average monthly precipitation. He identified six major divisions.
A. Tropical Humid
B. Dry
C. Mild mid-latitude
D. Severe Mid-latitude
E. Polar
H. Highland (added later).
These were subdivided into second and third divisions.
B classification is the only one initially determined by annual precipitation. If it is not a B climate then it is one of the other classifications. The amount of precipitation must be sufficient to support trees. Thus a desert is not defined by temperature, but by lack of vegetation. Koppen recognized another important issue called the effectiveness of precipitation.
A portion of rainfall is evaporated, what remains goes into the ground and is available for the plants. Koppen divined what was effective, that is available for the plants, by identifying three different annual patterns: rainfall year round, 70% in the summer or 70% in the winter. Each may have the same annual total but the amount left for the plants varies considerably.
So the B Climate cannot support trees, but Koppen uses a sub-classification letter to separate regions that support grasses BS (for steppe grasslands) from no vegetation at all, BW. A third letter separates h (hot) or k (cold). A desert is hot or cold defined by the lack of vegetation, not temperature.
Koppen modified his system, with revisions in 1918 and 1936, the last was 52 years after his first publication. He was not done. He died in 1940 at the age of 90 but not before he had produced a more sophisticated system with another every important early climatologist, Rudolf Geiger. It is called the Koppen-Geiger system and is still used (Figure 2).
*******
Figure 2: The generally linear pattern of climate is clear.
*******
Geiger’s valuable book Climate Near the Ground published in 1950 was an important contribution to climate science that few know about, but that requires another column.
Practical Climatology
Another name little known even to many latter-day climatologists is Charles Thornthwaite (1889-1963). In 1931 he produced a classification also based on precipitation effectiveness and vegetation. It was valuable because it was produced from easily available data, total monthly precipitation (P) and evaporation (E) to produce a P/E Index. He modified it in 1948 by including a moisture index that relates the amount of moisture a plant needs to the amount available, known as the Potential Evapotranspiration (PE). (Evapotranspiration is the combined moisture loss from the surface. Either directly, due to evaporation, or indirectly transpired through the plant to the atmosphere.)
In 1946 he opened the Laboratory of Climatology in New Jersey and worked there until his death in 1963. John Mather joined him and they produced a revised system in 1955 that is the basis of most practical applications of climate work in the world today. Everyone from irrigators to hydrologists use variations of the model for their work. For example, a paper studied the viability of predicting stream flow in Costa Rica and concluded; “These results indicate that the Thornthwaite method can be satisfactorily applied to estimate mean monthly stream- flow in the uplands of Costa Rica.”
Another study used the model for Stormwater Management Planning in Ontario.
The contributions of Thornthwaite to practical applications of climate were summarized in a 1996 biography, The Genius of C. Warren Thornthwaite, climatologist-geographer.”
Other methods of calculating moisture developed since Thornthwaite are mostly directed to assessing drought. These include the Palmer Drought Index, which estimates dryness from precipitation and temperature data. It is used by the US and Canadian governments among others and NOAA publishes a weekly Palmer Index.
IPCC Reports say little, but acknowledge lack of data and understanding. “There are very limited direct measurements of actual evapotranspiration over global land areas. Over oceans, estimates of evaporation depend on bulk flux estimates that contain large errors.” The problem is this is the major mechanism of transferal of heat energy in the global system.
They only make one dismissive comment about Thornthwaite’s work.
In his book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, William Kininmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre says, “The simple one-dimensional energy balance model used by the IPCC to justify its radiative forcing hypothesis is unrealistic in its portrayal of processes at the earth-atmosphere interface.” The IPCC model suggests that the heat and latent energy exchange between the underlying surface and the atmosphere is a direct response to the imbalance of solar energy and terrestrial radiation at the surface. Such a proposal is at odds with the physics of the surface energy exchange processes.” It’s one of many errors made to achieve a result; actions that are the opposite of even poor science.
*******
Biodiversity: Losing which species?
So, back to the cuddly wild animals as the excuse for shutting down the modern world
By Dennis Avery
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Churchville, VA—The UN has held another Green Summit in Nagoya, Japan to save the wild species—again. The planet’s temperatures have failed to increase for 12 years, and the public is losing interest in man-made global warming. So, back to the cuddly wild animals as the excuse for shutting down the modern world.
The UN’s problem is that we aren’t currently losing species, or very few. The current wildlife extinction rate is the lowest in 500 years—according to the UN Environmental Program’s own World Atlas of Biodiversity.
The old wooden-ship explorers have already spread Norway rats, cats, and weed seeds all over the world. The extinctions on the little islands have mostly happened already. The last flightless Dodo bird was roasted in 1681. Ancient primitive hunters have already wiped out the wooly mammoths and the cave bears.
Modern Global Warming’s predicted “million lost species” haven’t been lost, or even endangered. Numerous studies have shown that, far from the birds and butterflies going extinct, they are expanding their ranges and adopting new food habits during the modest warming of the past century.
We’ve lost the Golden Toad of Costa Rica, which is sad. But the peer-reviewed studies don’t blame global warming. R.O. Lawton of the University of Alabama-Huntsville found that the clearing of the forests below the Golden Toad’s cloud-forest home had changed the hydrology of the cloud forest.
A more recent study used stable isotopes from the cloud forest’s own trees to reconstruct a century of its dry-season moisture history. The greatest bio-stress comes during the El Niño’s. Anchukaitas and Evans found the extinction of the golden toad “coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986–87 El Nino event.” They specifically state: “There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming.”
Worried about the polar bears? Recent studies show that the polar bear population has increased from around 5,000 to 25,000 since 1970. Basically, it’s the result of more responsible hunting. A new paper used paleoclimate records to model the Arctic’s ice history over the past 10,000 years. The authors conclude that during the much-warmer centuries of the early Holocene (6000–8000 years ago) the Arctic probably was completely ice-free in some periods. The polar bear, as a species, goes back about 200,000 years. How did it weather the Holocene Warming?
What about the cute little pika, the smallest member of the rabbit family, which likes high-altitude rock-piles and harvests grass for winter fodder? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently told us—to howls of rage from eco-activists—that “the best available scientific information indicates that pikas will be able to survive despite higher temperatures. Pikas will have enough suitable high-elevation habitat to prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered.”
Remember, too, one of the pikas’ favorite territories is the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. John Christy recently found “there has been no change in summer nighttime temperatures in the adjacent Sierra Nevada Mountains. Summer daytime temperatures in the six-county area have actually cooled slightly since 1910.”
*******
Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity
NEXT Big Lie—biodiversity
By Alan Caruba
Sunday, October 31, 2010
After three decades of trying to push the global warming scam to a point where billions could be made selling and trading bogus “carbon credits”, the global schemers have abandoned it in the wake of 2009 revelations that a handful of rogue climate scientists were literally inventing the data to support it.
If there is one lesson to be learned from and about environmentalists, it is that they are utterly relentless. The ultimate goal is one-world government directed from the United Nations by unelected bureaucrats who are soulless strangers to the truth, to morality, to humanity.
The United States supports this abomination to the tune of billions every year.
The United Nations is a place where some of the world’s dictatorships have delegates representing them on its Human Rights Council, where a vast Oil-for-Food scandal flourished while Saddam Hussein held power in Iraq, where a single agency’s sole purpose is to ensure that Palestinians remain refugees six decades after the rebirth of Israel.
It is an organization where all manner of international treaties are ginned up to extend its control over the entire land mass and all the waters of the earth.
It is where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practiced its deceit, regularly documenting a rise in the earth’s average temperature even when a new natural cooling cycle began in 1998.
Everything that could be attributed to a phony global warming to keep the people of the world scared flowed from this enormous lie. It caused governments to invest billions into the worst forms of energy, wind and solar, along with endless other equally worthless “Green” programs.
So, now, permit me to introduce you to the NEXT Big Lie—biodiversity!
It is the claim that a “Global extinction crisis looms, new study says.” That’s the headline on an October 27 Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin, the Post’s designated shameless scaremongering reporter.
In June, the delegates from 200 nations gathered in Busan, a South Korean port city, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a platform just like the discredited IPCC, but with the goal of denying vast areas of the earth from the development needed to feed six billion people and provide the raw materials vital to the energy required for a modern technological society dependent on electricity and on transportation fuels.
The “reason” for this is the alleged extinction of “nearly 26,000 species across the globe.” The list was compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature that purports to count all the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish in the world to determine how “imperiled” there.
The very idea evokes incredulity. It is laughable and it is impossible. In the same fashion people were told that the global warmers could predict the temperature of the Earth fifty to a hundred years from now, we are expected to believe that all current species are imperiled. Just as humans were blamed for a non-existent rise in the Earth’s temperature, human are blamed on a massive and fictional extinction.
Consider that, from the earliest forms of life on earth to the existence of present species all have been engaged daily in the act of killing and eating one another. Ruminants that dine on grasses and other vegetation remain the prey for predator species.
Consider that of all the species that ever existed on Earth, 99% are extinct.
Nicholas K. Dulvy, a co-author of the list of alleged endangered species, complained that “We’ve transformed a third of the habitable land on earth for food production.” Oh, heaven forbid that humans should have enough food!
So, naturally, as reporter Eilperin noted, “Environmental groups are pushing for a goal of protecting 25 percent of all land on earth and 15 percent of the sea by 2020” even though, under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, roughly 14 percent of terrestrial areas and less than one percent of the ocean are already subject to so-called “environmental safeguards.”
Expect to begin hearing from yet a new group of “scientists” claiming that every creature from antelopes to zebras, from anteaters to weasels, albatrosses to vultures, crocodiles to vipers, and all the fish in the seas are doomed! Doomed! Doomed!
Billions of dollars that should go to feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and all manner of humanitarian needs will be siphoned off by this new group of United Nations grifters and charlatans for endless “research” grants and, of course, more international meetings to discuss this horrible new crisis.
This is how the cruel enviro-mafia works. We have all had a taste of it since the late 1980s when the global warming hoax was first perpetrated. The biodiversity lie needs a quicker death.
*******
Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers
Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record, UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
By John O'Sullivan
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.
Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27). In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.
First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record
But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’ See:
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
Along with other legal analysts I explained that the Kiwi government, in such circumstances, had no choice but to capitulate or face complete courtroom defeat and political suicide. In my speech I urged parliamentarians to heed the implications of this astonishing news.
In a last minute capitulation the Kiwi custodians of a cornerstone of a quarter of the world’s official temperature records admitted it was not so ‘official’ after all. By so doing the New Zealand government (via NIWA) bailed out of the international conspiracy and signaled a full-scale retreat for the ‘science’ of man-made warming.
UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
As I had long predicted, ultimate victory would come not from the darkened corner of some obscure science lab but under a stark legal light. Canny climate realist MP’s such as Sammy Wilson will certainly exploit the significance of this new legal phase in the climate war and speak directly to the moral standards of us all.
Kiwis had served a timely warning to eco-zealots all the way from Australia (BOM) to Britain and the United States (where 90 similar legal challenges are progressing) that climate realists in the English-speaking nations possess a most potent legal weapon – a transparent common law system handed down by their British founding fathers. Enshrined within legal principles is the right of citizens to petition government agencies so that they must come to court and openly account for their acts. Thus when compelled to show evidence for global warming the climate criminals flee the battle.
General Public Has Wised Up to the Sham
But this courtroom conflagration ought to have been more widely anticipated. Indeed, in the run up to the legal phase of our campaign the public has witnessed one very telling trend among government-funded researchers – they never debate with so called skeptics and never show the proof of their so-called “settled science.” For years these doomsayers have consistently and unlawfully denied freedom of information (FOIA) requests in Britain, at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and at NASA/GISS.
Realizing we now have a hard hitting legal message to resonate loudly among ordinary citizens Russia Today asked me to repeat the story to worldwide audiences via a live Moscow broadcast. The conclusion that must be drawn here is that when brought to court, the eco-advocates are tellingly exposed and cannot possibly justify their destructive trillion dollar cap-and-trade policies.
*******
Biodiversity: Replaces Climate Change As The Weapon For Political Control
Biodiversity is just another attempt to exploit people’s fears and lack of knowledge
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, October 21, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29005
*******
*******
The reality that global warming and climate change are natural and current patterns are within historic patterns is taking hold. Fundamental common sense embedded in the majority of people joined with truth pursuers and the healing perspective of time to bring reason. As always, those who profit politically, financially, or both, fight a rearguard action. Partly to defend the misdirection, but often to move the focus, while maintaining the target. Some of these different foci hover around the edge of the main battleground, but most are unaware how they’re interconnected.
Scientific Miracle: Creating Something Out Of Nothing
For example, climate change is part of the larger battle between religion and science that essentially began when Darwin published The Origin of the Species in 1859 (151st anniversary on November 24). It is not coincidence that books like Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene or The God Delusion are on bestseller lists. Stephen Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design claims “God was not needed to create the universe.”
It’s illogical for purely logical people to claim it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. They constantly avoid the problem of who produced the matter for the big bang? It’s ongoing and at the centre of the current debate triggered by the new paradigm of environmentalism. If you have no God then there is a problem with the presence and existence of humanity. In Dawkin’s view Darwin virtually replaces God, but that creates a dilemma. Fundamental to Darwin’s views are the idea of survival of a species. As Herbert Spencer said, “This survival of the fittest… is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’.”
This creates a paradox. Humans exist, but they are not part of the natural order and their success is not Darwinian, but unnatural. But we can’t have a God either.
Humans Are Unnatural: Get Them Off The Planet
An underlying theme of environmentalism is anti-humanity and anti-evolution. Accordingly, human progress is not a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration. Humans are exploiting and ravaging nature, essentially as a parasite that must be eliminated. Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said, “Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from

human exploitation.” Similarly, David Graber, a research biologist said, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Is this were Prince Philip got his idea? “In 1988, Britain’s Prince Philip expressed the wish that, should he be reincarnated, he would want to be a deadly virus that would reduce world population.” So, as Prince Virus you would decide who lives and dies.
Too Many, Too Efficient And Too Successful

Many issues emerge from the anti-humanity view, all showing how humans are destroying, nature, the planet, and all its components. The ideas were combined with sustainable development at the 1994 world conference on population in Cairo. Here it is in ‘bureaucratese’ from Section 3.1, “The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, adopted by the international community at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, call for patterns of development that reflect the new understanding of these and other intersectoral linkages.
There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement of social inequities and of poverty with the above- mentioned consequences for demographic parameters.” It’s a bizarre mix linking overpopulation with greedy behavior and resource exploitation to the solutions of reducing population, weakening economies and redistributing the wealth.
A short list of the issues that have been touted include, desertification, ozone destruction, acid rain, deforestation, acidification, extinction, coral bleaching, killer bee invasions, frog deformation, over-fishing, polar ice disappearance; the list is virtually endless.
Lose One, Lose Them All, Including Humans
The latest one is gaining traction because the United Nations declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity.
It’s the agency chosen by those with a one-world government agenda. Elaine Dewar, in her book Cloak of
Green asked Maurice Strong if he was a “One Worlder.” He replied, “I have said for years the world needs a world system of governance.” He chose it for his climate agenda because as he said, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Biodiversity is an ideal replacement for climate change; an emotional issue that few people know much about. The fear factor is amplified by the argument that all animals and plants are interdependent. If one species disappears then the entire chain is in jeopardy. It’s an extension of the Great Chain of Being view first proposed by Aristotle. It underpinned the Western view that ordered everything from inanimate rocks through animate plants, animals, humans, to Angels, then God.
Wikipedia is not a good source but it does reflect thinking and explains why biodiversity is a suitable vehicle for the latest environmental scare.
It says, “Biodiversity is the degree of variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or an entire planet.” But then they say, “Biodiversity is one measure of the health of ecosystems.” How? It’s estimated
we’ve only identified about 35 percent of the species. Just recently 200 species were discovered in Papua, New Guinea. The lead scientist said there are, “large areas of New Guinea that are pretty much unexplored biologically.”
Oceans are a bigger problem. “Biologists worldwide may have to start re-evaluating their estimates of the number of species on Earth, since expeditions documenting the oceans’ tiniest species have revealed shocking diversity: in the tens of millions of species, at least, and according to one researcher “closer to a billion”.
Wiki says, “Rapid environmental changes typically cause extinctions.” Ah, the climate change issue is still alive. But, “99.9 percent of species that have existed on Earth are now extinct.” What’s the problem; extinctions are normal? Is the current rate of extinction higher than normal? How did so many extinctions occur without the interlinked ecosystem collapsing? The truth is you can tell little from the fossil record. It’s estimated 15 million in a species is necessary for it to show in the fossil record. Being able to produce viable offspring identifies species. How can you determine that when only bones and teeth survive?
Biodiversity is just another attempt to exploit people’s fears and lack of knowledge.
*******
Also See:
Global cooling: Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change"
Saturday, January 16, 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-cooling-global-warming-myth.html
and
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
07 July 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/07/global-cooling-not-global-warming.html
and
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
07 May 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/05/global-warming-fact-or-fiction.html
*******

No comments: