Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Pravda
January 11, 2009

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Read article

Professor: Life-Giving Gas Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant

Raymond Brusca
The Daily Princetonian
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming.

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”

Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.

“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.

Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming. The institute was founded by former National Academy of Sciences president and prominent physicist Frederick Seitz GS ’34, who publicly expressed his skepticism of the claim that global warming is caused by human activity. Seitz passed away in March 2008.

In 2007, the Institute reported $726,087 in annual operating expenses, $205,156 of which was spent on climate change issues, constituting the largest portion of its program expenses, according to its I-990 tax exemption form.

In a statement sent to the Senate as part of his request, Happer explained his reasoning for challenging the climate change movement, citing his research and scientific knowledge.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

Full story here.

Research related articles:

1. Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science “Mistaken”
2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
3. US Should Find Way to Price Carbon Emissions - Execs
4. Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum
5. “Carbon army” hopes to grab slice of New Deal cash
6. MSM Ignores Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0
7. Climate-change alarmism runs into a reality check
8. Carbon tax seen as best way to slow global warming
9. Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression
10. Mobile phones to track carbon footprint
11. Japan to label goods’ carbon footprints: official
12. WWF Blames Global Cooling On “Carbon Pollution”

Hollywood: Pushing Global Warming Down Your Throat

Michael van der Galien
Big Hollywood 
Monday, Jan 12, 2008

One of Hollywood’s main heroes today is former Vice President Al Gore due to the success of his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” In this documentary, Gore tries to explain to the public that man-made global warming is real and that something has to change if we want to undo the damage we cause to this wonderful planet which would have been so much more wonderful if only those pesky humans lived on, say, Mars.

Since the above is a message Hollywood can believe in, liberal actors and directors (but I am repeating myself) jumped on the bandwagon and repeated it whenever possible. See for instance the $80 million remake of “The Day The Earth Stood Still” starring Keanu Reeves. Sci-Fi fans like myself will be happy to know that watching this movie is like listening to Barbara Streisand (or Jane Fonda) give a a political speech. The original movie may have been great, the remake is nothing but Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” poured in a sci-fi jacket.

Blogger Brian Kane did quite a good job summarizing and interpreting the movie: Reeves is the main character, who believes that earth would be better off without human beings due to the destruction they cause to the environment. The solution, then, is simple; wipe out all human life, let the other life forms take over. It is a message even Greenpeace knows better than to repeat publicly.

Since human beings would rather not be killed they try to convince Reeves to revise his plans. Isn’t there a way for all of us to get along? Can’t we change? Reeves is at long last convinced by a liberal professor (need I comment?) who, although intellectually inferior to the almighty and all-understanding Reeves, convinces him nonetheless that humans “can change!” Reeves decides to give human beings another change, but not before forcing them to adopt a more environmental-conscious lifestyle. This means that much of our present technology does not work; one wonders why it is that Hollywood’s war on technology seldom is not, for some reason, applicable on televisions; perhaps because we will always “need” Hollywood?
With movies like “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” Hollywood tries to rather obviously influence the American public; but it is not merely influencing Americans. Foreigners too watch Hollywood movies, and they have about the same impact and influence - arguably even more - down here in Europe than in the U.S.

Let me explain: depicting English-speaking peoples in a movie as too egotistical to take care of the planet, thereby possibly bringing destruction on all of us, confirms the anti-American image spouted by Europe’s anti-Americans for decades.

Americans are selfish. They do not care about anyone but their own instant satisfaction. The latest example or proof of this is global warming; we all ‘know’ it is man-made, except for those silly and egotistical Americans who would rather destroy us all than switch on the lights a little less often (or use light bulbs that use less energy). You know the drill.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (and many other movies) confirm this negative, anti-American image of America, which has already had a tremendous impact on Europe; ironically, Hollywood has done more to spread Anti-Americanism and make it socially acceptable, than most non-American America-haters. The more Hollywood repeats this message, the more anti-Americanism will increase here, and the more popular outspoken anti-American movies will be. Hollywood is not merely pushing global warming down your, and our, throat, it also often paints and spreads a highly negative picture of America and Americans. A picture deemed realistic by most foreigners who have little to no contact with ‘real’ Americans.

Perhaps Hollywood could, every once in a while, portray Americans as normal people who care just as much about the rest of mankind as the rest of us. Of course it will have to approach issues such as global warming in a fairer and more objective manner in order to do so. As a man much smarter than I once said: keep hope alive!

Research related articles:

1. Global Warming or Global Governance?
2. Fix For Global Warming? Scientists Propose Covering Deserts With Reflective Sheeting
3. Global warming the new religion
4. Yes, global warming “is just propaganda”
5. You were saying something about a Global Warming Consensus?
6. Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science “Mistaken”
7. The so-called consensus on global warming is melting
8. The Nonsense of Global Warming
9. Film-makers taking on our ‘global warming hysteria’
10. What Global Warming?
11. Watch Obama closely on global warming
12. Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax

Spraying aerosols into atmosphere may reduce global warming

Washington, Dec 30 (ANI):

Scientists are planning to put aerosols into the atmosphere to chemically unlock the greenhouse effect and allow more of the suns reflected heat to radiate back into space, thus reducing the effects of global warming.

According to a report in Discovery News, the idea has been put forward by David Keith from the University of Calgarys Energy and Environmental Systems Group, and his colleagues.

Scientists are concerned that Earth is growing increasingly warm due to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere that inhibit the planets ability to radiation heat into space.

Human-related activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are believed to be accelerating the planets accumulation of greenhouse gases, even though naturally occurring phenomena such as volcanic eruptions and fires account for 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Even if we stopped emissions instantly today, we still have enough CO2 in the atmosphere that it is possible we would have unacceptable levels of climate risk, said Keith.

While we may be lucky and find climate only warms by a degree or so, we may be unlucky and find it’’s more like five or six (degrees). Were not going to know until weve put enough CO2 to make an irreversible decision, he added.

Keith and colleagues want to investigate putting aerosols, such as sulfur, into the atmosphere to chemically unlock the greenhouse effect and allow more of the suns reflected heat to radiate back into space.

This brings up the question of who would make that decision, said Alan Robock of Rutgers University.

From an engineering standpoint, scientists have looked at a variety of systems to deliver the goods, including high-altitude aircraft, such the militarys KC135 tankers used to refuel fighter jets, balloons, artillery, even a space elevator.

Other options include lacing commercial airlines jet fuel with sulfur-containing particles, though this likely would give rise to a host of new problems, including engine contamination and safety concerns.

No one has actually looked at what would happen if you tried to put these materials into the stratosphere, said Richard Turco, with the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of California in Los Angeles.

Scientists disagreed on whether atmospheric seeding to change the climate could be successful on a regional level, or if any initiatives must be globally based to be effective.

They were united, however, in calling for a focused research effort.

Theres very little funded research (about) managing the risks of climate change, Keith said. (ANI)

(original article)

EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth

The Times

Times, January 2, 2009

The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy - including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases - the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.Czech diplomats in Brussels insist that Mr Klaus is not a big part of their plans and are trying to limit him to one speech to the European Parliament in February and chairing one international summit, either the EU-Canada or EU-Russia meeting. They are pinning their hopes on a lunch between Mr Klaus and Mr Topolanek on January 5, which they hope will see both parties agree a truce after the President’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat his rival as Prime Minister at a party conference last month.

“What is sure is that there will be at least a little choir of voices coming from Prague that will not be singing the same song,” said Piotr Kaczynski, of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels.

“It will probably not impact the way the Czechs will manage the work of the EU presidency. It will however have some negative impact on the political leverage of the Czech presidency,” he added.

Tensions recently erupted between Mr Klaus and Brussels when a private meeting with senior MEPs descended into a slanging match after they presented him with an EU flag and said that they were not interested in his Eurosceptic views.

Mr Klaus responded: “No one has spoken to me in this style and tone in my six years here. I thought these methods ended for us 18 years ago. I see I was wrong.”

This led to a counter-attack from Mr Sarkozy in the European Parliament. He told MEPs: “The president of the European Parliament should not be treated like this and Europe’s symbols should not be treated like this, whatever people’s political engagement.”

Mr Klaus returned to the row over Christmas in a Czech television interview. “I dare say that these people represent the height of anti-Europeanism. They have absolutely no right to wave Europe in front of our face,” he said.

There has been further sniping, not least from the French, that the Czechs do not have the clout or the capability to lead the EU as it faces the key challenge of the financial crisis. Mr Sarkozy has threatened to convene meetings of the 16 member states of the Euro during the Czech presidency because the Czechs do not have the single currency.

Nor does Mr Sarkozy believe Prague has the ability to deal with an increasingly restive Russia, which is threatening an arms race over US plans for missile defence radar in the Czech Republic.

The Czechs are also one of just three EU states not to have passed the controversial Lisbon treaty, which has enraged Mr Sarkozy after his drive to revive the document. Mr Klaus continues to lead Czech opposition to a treaty he likens to Communist centralism.

He is undeniably popular with Czech voters, having been Prime Minister from 1992-97, overseeing the harmonious break-up with Slovakia, and president since 2003. An economist who spent much of his working life at the Czechoslovak State Bank during the Iron Curtain years, he became active in politics as a champion of free market economics after 1989 and is said to keep a photo of Lady Thatcher, who he greatly admires, on his desk.

“The fact that Klaus holds these views makes it difficult to run the presidency,” said Robin Shepherd, senior fellow for Europe at the Chatham House think-tank.

“Klaus is not the head of government...but he is the public face of the Czech Republic.”

(original article)

Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con

Belfast Telegraph
January 1, 2009

Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.

But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.

“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.

“Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it

“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”

Full article here

EPA ‘Cow Tax’ Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases

Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
Wednesday, Dec 31, 2008

Call this one of the newest and innovative the ways your government has come up with to battle greenhouse gas emissions.

Indirectly it could be considered a cheeseburger tax, but one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock.

The ANPR, released early this year, would give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas for not only greenhouse gas from manmade sources like transportation and industry, but also “stationary” sources which would include livestock.

The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.

“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”

But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.

“The new president has been on record as saying that he really supports regulating greenhouse gases out of the Clean Air Act,” Krause said to the Business & Media Institute. “So, we really have to keep an eye on it. Legislation would really be the only way to exempt it at this point – the cow tax.”

Krause said it is difficult to quantify the cost that might be passed directly to the consumer by farmers from the legislation, but predicted it would mean higher costs for dairy production.

“It’s hard to figure what it would do to consumer prices since farmers, unlike other industries, really can’t pass their cost along directly like utilities and things do,” “About the only thing we could realistically come up, in terms of any of this stuff – it would add between 7 and 8 cents per gallon of milk costs to farmers. So it would cost them 7 or 8 cents more to produce a gallon of milk.”

Even the Department of Agriculture warned the EPA that smaller farms and ranches would have difficulty with limits as much as 100 tons annually on emissions:

“If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved.”

Environmentalism Is Racism

All of the insanities of the environmental movement become intelligible when one grasps the nature of the destructive motivation behind them. They are not uttered in the interest of man’s life and well-being, but for the purpose of leading him to self-destruction

~ George Reisman

Recently, one of my favorite clients organized a salmon-fishing trip attended by his key employees, vendors, and creditors. It was highly enjoyable, indeed, to spend time fishing and chatting with professionals such as architects, structural engineers, bankers, project managers, etc. One conversation, however, impacted me the most. A lively discussion, regarding the housing bubble and its aftermath, was underway when a gentleman interjected that: "Environmentalism has cost my family a lot of money." The first thought that entered my mind was: "Where did that comment come from?" Nonetheless, after hearing his tale of woe, it struck me that environmentalism is racism.

(read the story)