by Marc Morano, ClimateDepot.com
[Note: The below is a longer and updated version of the article in May 14, 2013 in Human Events.]
The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come very close to reaching the “symbolic” 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold in the atmosphere.
Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level “A sad milestone. A call to action.” New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to “a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom” and warned that rising CO2 means “the fate of the earth hangs in the balance.” The New Yorker Magazine declared “Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.” And a UK Guardian editorial declared “Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis.”
But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature. Continue reading
by Dr. Ed Berry, aka badassBerry
Rep Doug Coffin (D), Missoula, Professor of Molecular Biology at the U of Montana, sponsored HJ 10. I presented my rebuttal to the Montana House Committee on Natural Resources on February 13, 2011.
Whereas some proponents of HJ-10 said they were students of the Climate Change program at the U of Montana, and one proponent referenced a climate lecture by Dr. Steve Running, ecologist (not atmospheric physicist), and Whereas HJ-10 is sponsored by a science professor at the U of Montana, and Whereas HJ-10 demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that the U of Montana Climate Change program is unadulterated pseudo science, …
Therefore, here are some questions for Professor Coffin and Dr. Steve Running on some basics of climate change science. Continue reading
by Dr. Ed Berry, aka badassBerry
I presented this rebuttal to the Montana House Committee on Natural Resources on February 13, 2011. You may download the PDF I prepared for the committee.
Rep Doug Coffin (D), Missoula, Professor of Molecular Biology at the U of Montana, sponsored HJ 10. Information about Rep Doug Coffin is here and here. The HJ 10 legislative draft is here. Continuing Bill information will be here. Download PDF.
The Legislature must reject HJ-10 because it is based upon the false premise – that climate science is settled - that has been rejected by the Montana Supreme Court.
The Legislature also must reject HJ-10 because it is totally wrong about climate science, makes significant logical and scientific errors, and proposes RESOLUTIONS that would reduce climate science to a government-dictated catechism to be memorized and obeyed and legalize and promote indoctrination and brainwashing in our schools and universities.
Part 1. Two key reasons to reject HJ-10 Continue reading
by Klaus-Eckart Puls and Sebastian Lüning (translated, edited by P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone)
Currently this 2012/13 winter in Germany and over large parts of Europe we’ve been finding lots of cold, snow and ice - the fifth winter of this type in a row. Who can still recall the prognoses and claims of some alarmists of the established climate science community, like this one ?:
‘Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes,’ said scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”
This quote comes from an interview with SPIEGEL in the year 2000. The headline: “Good-bye winter: No more snow? In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.”
However, perhaps Professor Latif meant this as a joke because the article appeared on April 1, 2000! Continue reading
by P Gosselin, NoTricksZone
Meteorologist Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg has an article posted at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here. He tells us we ought to be preparing for a cooler 21st century first half.
Professor Malberg starts his article by showing and discussing various solar activity charts. Today I’m a little short on time, and so I’ve translated his outlook and conclusion part of the article, which sums it up nicely.
The sun is currently at the start of a quiet phase of activity and will likely reach the critical mean value of 50 sunspots during the current cycle, or even fall below it, i.e. the boundary value between a warm and a cold period. Analogous to the climate conditions during the time of the Dalton Minimum of 200 years ago, we have to expect a climate cooling for the decades ahead. Continue reading
Hearing for HJ 10 is scheduled for: Wednesday, Feb 13, 3 p.m., Rm 172, Helena
Rep Doug Coffin (D), Missoula, introduced HJ 10. Information about Rep Doug Coffin is here and here. The HJ 10 legislative draft is here. Continuing Bill information will be here. Download PDF.
House Joint Resolution Number 10
A Joint Resolution of the Senate And The House Of Representatives
of the State Of Montana stating that
Climate Change is Scientifically Valid and Represents an Ecological Threat Continue reading
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.
Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.
The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.
Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
[Download the PDF with full statement and signatures.]
by The Right Climate Stuff Research Team
January 23, 2013
There are competing points of view regarding the causes of climate change in our current environment. One group has concluded that human activities in the burning of fossil fuels have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which has caused a recent acceleration of a 300 year trend of global warming. This point of view is usually called “Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming” (AGW.) The most prevalent alternative point of view is that natural variations account for most, if not all, of changes in climate.
The professional conflict between the advocates of these two hypotheses generally comes down to a debate between AGW advocates attempting to predict future climate change through unproven computer models, and the AGW skeptics point of view based on observed data and effects of CO2 on temperature changes in Earth’s present and past climates. In addition, there is often disagreement about how the existing climate data is interpreted, and the conclusions drawn from these interpretations. Continue reading
by Dr. Ed Berry
The UK Met Office developed a new version of its climate model, since the old one did not make accurate predictions. Their new climate model predicts no further global warming out to 2017, the 5-year limit of its forecast. Based upon this new forecast, there will be no global warming since 1997, or for 20 years, even though atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising and will continue to rise.
This new climate forecast falsifies the global warming hypothesis that more carbon dioxide will cause global warming. Therefore, according to the UK Met Office, global warming is dead. For political reasons, the UK Met Office may not wish to say it this way, but you can be sure the scientists in the Office realize full well the significance of their new forecast.
Monthly Weather Review, November 1922, page 589. (See NOAA PDF here.)
by George Nicolas IFFT
(Under the date of October 10, 1922, the American consul at Bergen, Norway, submitted the following report to the State Department, Washington, D.C.)
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spetzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations. Continue reading
Published by Financial Post (and also here since I am a signer – Ed)
Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.” Continue reading
by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen, also published in WSJ
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes. Continue reading
Open Letter to the United States Senate
You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.
We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.
We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter. Continue reading
Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council:
As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate. Continue reading
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012
Leighton Steward’s lectures to ex-NASA scientists at the Space Center in Houston resulted in this joint letter from 50 former NASA scientists and astronauts. Steward found 90 percent of the scientists disagree with the NASA-GISS global warming position, so he suggested they write a letter to NASA. Continue reading
by William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University, WSJ
During a fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this month, President Obama is reported to have said:
“It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather.”
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Continue reading
Open Letter from scientists, Wall Street Journal
[Open Letter #4: Authors of Open Letter #1 reply to Open Letters #2 and #3.]
The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, “No Need to Panic about Global Warming,” is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.) Continue reading
Open Letter #3 from APS President, Wall Street Journal
[This letter also responds to Open Letter #1]
The Jan. 27 op-ed “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” is inaccurate in its characterization of the Climate Change Statement of the American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading organization of physicists with more than 50,000 members. Continue reading
Open Letter #2 from Opposing Scientists, Wall Street Journal
[This letter responds to Open Letter #1 below.]
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. Continue reading
Open Letter #1 from Scientists, Wall Street Journal
[Several signors to this letter contributed to the exhibits used by Climate Physics LLC in its successful Intervention of the Climate Petition by Our Children's Trust, which would have forced the climate fraud upon Montana's citizens and economy. - Ed]
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. Continue reading
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Click here for details.
by Ed Berry, PhD, President, Climate Physics LLC
As I reported on December 20, Climate Physics, with the help of about 120 dedicated Montanans, defeated the Our Children’s Trust Petition for Original Jurisdiction on climate change in the Montana Supreme Court on June 15, 2011.
Since no other group in Montana was willing to stand up to this petition, Climate Physics Institute happily took the lead. Since we had only one week for our attorney to file our Motion to Intervene, there was no time to ask for money. Therefore, I personally paid the discounted legal fees of about $7000, and of course I did not bill for my own time. Continue reading
by Ed Berry, PhD, Director Climate Physics LLC
With the help of about 120 dedicated Montanans and Climate Physics LLC, Montana’s Climate Change Freedom Day occurred on June 15, 2011. Here’s the story of how it happened.
As you read my story, I hope you will press the Donate button and help reimburse Climate Physics for the legal fees and costs of its Motion to Intervene and to give Climate Physics the monetary base to defeat future scientifically-unfounded actions. Continue reading
To Editor, Flathead Beacon, published September 28, 2011.
In a recent letter (August 24, Beacon: “Distortions of Court Decision on Climate Change Petition” - read below), Dr. Elwood, an ecologist, attempted to interpret law.
Here is what the Montana Supreme Court reviewed and ruled: Continue reading
by American Tradition Institute, Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Michael Mann, lead author of the discredited “hockey stick” graph that was once hailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the “smoking gun” of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has asked to intervene in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks certain records produced by Mann and others while he was at the University of Virginia, for the purpose of keeping them hidden from the taxpayer. Continue reading
by Amy Poehling Eddy, president, Montana Trial Lawyers Association
Cover Story, The Montana Lawyer, August 2011
[This article is by one member of the team of liberal lawyers who initiated the potentially disastrous Climate Change Petition in Montana. Climate Physics Institute and its Intervenors, donors and attorneys successfully defended the People of Montana against this Petition which would have devastated Montana while doing absolutely nothing to "forestall global warming." Stay tuned. They will return. - Ed Berry] Continue reading
To: Editor, Flathead Beacon, by Quentin M. Rhoades, Esq.
I read with great interest your recent Guest Commentary of Jim Manley regarding his Climate Change lawsuit. (July 28, 2011.) Mr. Manley portrays himself and his team of attorneys working on the case as simple country lawyers who are generously protecting future generations, at no charge mind-you, from hayseeds and industry hacks in the Montana Legislature. The reason for my attention to the Mr. Manley’s column is that I served as an attorney in the Climate Change case, representing the Big Fork based Climate Physics LLC, Continue reading