Below is a letter signed by 6 notable American scientists, published in a student paper at the Brigham Young University (BYU), USA. This letter was initiated by my friend, American-Malaysian astrophysict, Willie Soon.
Note, all of these 6 scientists have PhDs, they just did not put the title in their names in this letter. One of them is a geologist and former astronaut who was the last living "Moon walker", Jack Schmitt.
These 6 intelligent souls are saying only one thing: there was no scientific "consensus" to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory in the past, no "consensus" until now, and there will never be one. Because the theory behind AGW is flatly wrong.
below is their letter.
---------
http://universe.byu.edu/node/1138
Viewpoint: Still a hot debate
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 20:54
Jeremy Kuhre recently suggested BYU students are unreasonably skeptical about global warming, in the face of “virtually unanimous” acceptance among climatologists of the belief our planet is “heating up.” He equates the students with people who maintain the lunar landing was a hoax.
We the undersigned have studied weather, climate and climate change for years — and we can state with certainty that there is no unanimous view among scientists on the matter of man-made catastrophic global warming.
One of us, Harrison Schmitt, actually stood on the moon, drilled holes, collected moon rocks and has since returned to Earth. He knows the landing was real.
Probably all climate and other scientists do agree our Earth warmed intermittently and slowly between 1850 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since then. But that is not the issue. The question is whether humans’ use of oil, coals and natural gas can cause a future global warming disaster — and on that there is tremendous disagreement, just as there is about the forces that are responsible for recent, current and past climate changes. This is the reason why over 31,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition.
The opposition to the hypothesis of catastrophic climate change from rising atmospheric CO2 is legitimate, and it is the right and duty of all citizens, including American farmers, to ask questions and demand evidence and answers. The news media have contributed to the incorrect and biased view that recent warming was caused by human CO2 emissions and that future warming will be disastrous for humans, wildlife and our planet.
The media and political activists have also promoted policies that attack American liberties and harm and kill people, by diverting money, attention and energy resources from far more urgent and worthy purposes, such as reducing poverty, malaria and malnutrition and improving the living standards for everyone.
The issue of global warming is not a war of “expertise.” It is, or should be, an objective study of scientific measurements and data — which can now confirm atmospheric CO2 plays at most a minor role in causing weather and climate change.
BYU is an institution of higher learning that should promote the seeking of truth. Similarly, science is an objective assessment of hypotheses, testing concepts against actual data and observations; it is not a matter of votes, popularity or “virtual unanimity.” We are all harmed, if we allow our universities or our science to be politicized.
Harrison Schmitt
Geologist and Astronaut
Craig Idso
Geographer
David R. Legates
Climatologist
Art Robinson
Chemist
Noah Robinson
Chemist
Willie Soon
Astrophysicist
------
Meanwhile, I wrote this two days ago:
Climate Alarmists BBC vs UK Met Office
It's interesting how a big climate alarmist media like BBC is now criticizing the UK's Meteorological office for whipping "barbeque summer" or "scorching summer" predictions in April of each year the past 3 Aprils, only for the British public to endure cold and wet summers, especially June-July. See BBC news report below.
Meanwhile, per Joe d Aleo's (or perhaps other scientists') monitoring of sunspot activity, since January this year, 76 percent of all days have zero sunspot, blank as in white paper. The implication for this in the Sun-climate link theory, is that more cooling is way ahead.
From what I have read, the Sun's magnetic field (as observed in the number of sunspots) creates solar wind. Strong solar magnetic field, strong solar wind. Which drives away cosmic galactic rays from the outer space that are suppose to help catalyze the formation of low-lying clouds, which blocks sunlight, which results in global cooling. With weak solar magnetic field, few or zero sunspots, more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere, they help form low-lying clouds, which mainly explains for the current global cooling.
David Archibald, a physicist, noted the other day that even NASA now admits that the Earth may be approaching the Dalton Minimum of global cooling, occured 2 centuries ago. I wonder what James Hansen, the top and most vocal climate alarmist in NASA, would say about the recent pronouncement of NASA?
-----------
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/science/ nature/8173533. stm
Met Office cools summer forecast
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst
You will need a brolly on holiday in the UK in August - the Met Office is issuing a revised forecast for more unsettled weather well into the month.
It is a far cry from the "barbecue summer" it predicted back in April.
The news will raise questions about the Met Office's ability to make reliable seasonal forecasts.
But the organisation has defended its record, saying people have already forgotten the hot weather experienced across many parts of Britain in June.
It also highlights the absence of the sort of major floods that blighted 2007 and 2008; and the largely fine weather for the Wimbledon tennis championship, the cricket Tests and the Open golf.
The Met Office also says temperatures have been around or above normal, and that the end of August might be better again.
It did indeed stress at the time of the summer forecast in April that the odds of a scorching summer were 65%. It explains that it coined the phrase "barbecue summer" to help journalists' headlines.
But this has come back to bite the organisation because many people do not feel like they have been enjoying a "good" summer, especially compared with previous searing years....
Showing posts with label Arthur Robinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arthur Robinson. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Heartland 2nd ICCC 2009: Politicizing science
New York – When something is politicized – whether it’s rice or wages, energy or just about anything, expect the politicians and bureaucrats, not the market players, whether they’re producers or consumers, to dictate the price and the rules of exchange.
Even in the field of science, when it is politicized, politicians and various political forces, not scientists, set the rules on how to tackle the perceived scientific problem.
Climate change alarmism and global warming scare can prove to be one of the greatest scams and taxation rackets that the world would ever know. The notion is: this is an anthropogenic (man-made) global warming caused by high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The result is large-scare climate, economic and social catastrophe. The solution is large-scale reduction in human emission of CO2, reduction in economic activities if necessary, just to “save the planet” and ourselves.
The flow in this logic looks rational except that there are plenty of premises that need to be satisfied before the above logic holds. Failure in any of those premises will cause the breakdown of the above reasoning and render it illogical. Consequently, this affects the all-encompassing proposals to cut down CO2 emissions by heavier government regulation and taxation, heavy subsidization (if not cronyism) of taxpayers’ money for favored “clean” energy sources, and the companies, consultants, expensive speakers and powerful lobby groups that benefit from alarmism.
These are among the important issues and topics that were discussed during the “International Conference on Climate Change” (ICCC) with a sub-theme, “Global Warming: was it ever really a crisis?” The event was sponsored by the Heartland Institute (www.heartland.org) and co-sponsored by 60 other private and independent think tanks from around the world, mostly from the US. Our group, Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc. (www.minimalgovernment.net) is one of the three think tanks from Asia that co-sponsored the event, held at the New York Marriot Marquis hotel in this city. I was given a travel scholarship by Heartland and I was able to attend the event from March 8 and concluded today, March 10. Well, I was the only Filipino participant out of around 700 people who came to that conference.
There were plenty of known scientists-speakers during the event. Among them were Dr. Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology (with degrees in Physics and Applied Mathematics) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Jack Schmidt, an American geologist, former NASA astronaut, university professor and US Senator also spoke. He was the 12th and last person to walk on the moon.
Dr. Arthur Robinson who heads the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, spoke and dissected inconvenient contradictions in the “Inconvenient Truth”. He directed the Petition Project (www.petitionproject.org) which declared:
“There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”
This Petition obtained the support and signatures of 31,478 American scientists, 9,029 of whom have PhDs! I also got a copy of this Petition that contains the paper by Dr. Robinson and his two colleagues. It contains lots of graphs and scientific evidence, and the list of Petition signers alone, state by state, is 200 pages long.
A Swedish scientist, Dr. Fred Goldberg, professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, and an authority on polar history and exploration, delivered a paper, “Do the planets and the sun control our climate and the CO2 in the atmosphere?” From the various graphs, charts and scientific tables that he presented, his answer was a clear “Yes”.
Dr. Laurence Gould, a professor of Physics (and Math, astronomy, etc.) at the University of Hartford, showed in his presentation that humans produce only 3.5% of all CO2 emissions in the air and CO2 comprises only 0.038% of the atmosphere. He noted that even if all Kyoto Protocol agreements were to be implemented, global temperature will decline by only 0.07 degree Celsius (at a cost of several trillion dollars of carbon and petroleum taxes, higher energy prices and lower economic, lower standard of living).
There were several dozen other scientist speakers, along with several economists, legislators and think tank leaders. But a striking speaker for me on the last day of the conference was Dr. Willie Soon, a Malaysian-American astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
The IPCC Report said there was no connection between the sun and climate changes. Dr. Soon also showed that CO2 emission has very little, if any, correlation to climate changes. He showed a chart for data collected in Salt Lake City, which shows that CO2 emissions were high during winter and recedes to low levels when summer comes. This suggests zero connection between CO2 emission and climate changes.
The IPCC report was also very adamant in arguing that it is not only carbon emission per se, but anthropogenic or man-made carbon emission that’s to blame for global warming and climate change!
There is absence of “consensus” therefore, among scientists around the world, to declare that anthropogenic carbon emission is the single biggest culprit that causes global warming, now billed as climate change.
From the long line-up of scientists who spoke during the conference, it showed that the above assertion has NO scientific basis at all. It also showed that the IPCC Report was a political document masquerading as a scientific paper to push certain political agenda like controlling people’s pockets and lives – how much petroleum and energy taxes to pay, what kind of energy sources they should or should not use (energy sources to be killed), what new tax-and-trade (a.k.a. “cap-and-trade”) schemes to be imposed, how much biofuel mix to be made mandatory for our vehicles, what percent of agricultural lands can be devoted to planting bio-fuels, etc.
The threats to economic growth and world food production as well as individual liberty is large due to the politicization of climate science to favor various rent-seekers, inside and outside of governments and inter-government bodies. It is a dangerous scheme that must be exposed to the public.
And what is the alternative? Do nothing. Do not legislate tax-and-trade schemes, do not legislate mandatory bio-fuels or ethanol for our vehicles, do not create new Presidential (and Governors’ and Mayors’) task forces or Commissions for climate change, do not raise petroleum taxes or hike existing rates, do not subsidize clean and renewable energy sources. There is big demand for renewable energies, many people will buy such energy even if it’s expensive than conventional and non-renewable energies.
Adaptation – not alarmism and bureaucratism, to climate change is the simplest and most effective way to deal with climate change, whether it’s global warming or global cooling.
---------
On February 01, 2009, I wrote this:
Global Warming Cancelled
Recently, the US and Europe experienced some of their most nasty and icy winters on record. Even tropical countries like the Philippines also experienced a long and oftentimes nasty “cold front” the past two months and until early this month. Consequently, news stories about global warming (GW) and climate change (CC) were not as frequent and virulent as last year.
The GW and CC scare, while supposedly a “wake-up call” for the rest of humanity to mend their ways so they can help “combat” GW and CC, is actually a very expensive and dangerous move. Expensive because all governments, rich and poor alike, are talking about several hundred billion dollars of funding and new foreign aid, to kill “dirty” energy sources and subsidize “clean” ones. Dangerous because GW and CC scare is being used as a convenient excuse to increase government control over the citizens’ lives, income and decision making.
The government will now be producing new rules and regulations, new bureaucracies outlining what acts by the citizens will be penalized with taxes and fees -- if not imprisonment, what acts to be given government subsidies, and so on. This is effectively a new form of social engineering where the State further shapes our lives, our working and spending habits and our relationship with other people.
Meanwhile, governments continue to set up dozens of new agencies and bureaucracies that require regular funding from tax money. In the Philippines for instance, the government created a new and big bureaucracy called the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC). This body has also created 14 “task groups” to cover wide issues from rainwater conservation to outdoors and rooftop structures, including regulating and penalizing some activities and providing incentives to others. The amount of new government personnel to be hired just to monitor, who are violating certain regulations and who deserves incentives like subsidies, will be huge.
Lucky though, there is a growing number of people, especially scientists and policy makers, NGOs and think tank leaders around the world, who are not enamored by the continuing GW and CC scare. They recognize that there is climate change, the same way that people change and cultures, communities and technologies change. But they do not believe that the answer is more government environmental and taxation regulations, but rather adaptation by the people to the changing climate and its consequences, changing hydrologic pattern, changing agricultural production, and so on.
One of such international think tanks that does not believe in the GW scare, is the Heartland Institute in Chicago. It is sponsoring the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), and it will be supported by more than 40 other independent think tanks including Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., as co-sponsors. The event will be held in New York on March 8 to 10, 2009.
Among the speakers in the conference will be Vaclav Klaus, Jose Maria Aznar and Dr. Jack Schmitt. Vaclav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic, and the current president of the European Union. He wrote a recently-published book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, where he argued that the debate over GW has "become a symbol and example of the clash between truth and propaganda.”
Jose Maria Aznar is the former Prime Minister of Spain. He calls GW alarmism as a form of “new religion”. Dr. Jack Schmitt is a retired astronaut, the last living man to walk on the moon. Other speakers in the Conference will be Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; and Richard Lindzen of MIT and one of the world's leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
The current global financial turmoil proved to be an ally and a friend of GW scare. A friend because demand for petroleum products in many countries around the world has plummeted, resulting in lower oil consumption and lower air pollution. But it is also an enemy of GW scare because even governments of rich countries are running out of money for huge subsidies for “clean” energy sources, as governments are diverting huge amount of tax money for fiscal stimulus and to bail out their collapsing huge banks and corporations.
Adaptation by people, not more government environmental regulations and taxation, remains the best measure to cope with climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)