Arvovaltaisten ilmastoskeptikkojen määrä kasvaa

WALL STREET JOURNAL


"The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)"

"Ilmastoalarmismin isä" Hansen pidätettiin mielenosoituksessa !

NASA:n Hansen on ryhtynyt politikoimaan ja hillumaan mielenosoituksissa Greenpeacen ja muiden hörhöjen joukoissa, kun ansiot tiedemiehenä on kyseenalaistettu (kuvassa Hansen keskellä).



TÄÄLLÄ LISÄÄ

Alarmistien kivijalka sortuu: Vesihöyryn palautevaikutus negatiivinen

Richard Lindzenin todistus US Senaatille



Richard Lindzen Cato organisaatiolle


"The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be diminished"

"CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time"

Warwickhughes


"But let us switch back to the IPCC 2007 report. The four atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea;
basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are: human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2
1. Carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greengreenhouse
gas, increased markedly as a result of human ac- house effect, probably close to 0.12%"

EPA:n hiilidioksidin julistaminen "saasteeksi" maksaa maltaita !

CO2-faktaa


"A few days before this year's Earth Day, America's ideological greens received a present they have been desiring for years: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – responding to a 2007 US Supreme Court ruling – officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That spurred Democrats in Congress to push a major climate change bill. In the next 25 years, their massive cap-and-trade scheme would, according to a Heritage Foundation study, inflict gross domestic product losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family's energy bill by $1,241, and destroy some 1,145,000 jobs. Democrats want it passed by July 4"

"1. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. This discloses the capricious nature of the EPA's decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all – water vapor, which accounts for more than three-quarters of the atmosphere's greenhouse effect – should be regulated, too. The EPA isn't going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.

3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economical"

"Epämiellyttävä totuus" ilmastonmuutoksesta alarmisteille

Polar bears are not dying out: Most populations are doing very well, say Professors Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks


Ja täällä lisää:


DAILY MAIL

Venäjä lisää hiilidioksidipäästöjä 30%

UUTINEN

HFC-yhdisteet voimakkaita kasvihuonekaasuja

Vihreän liikkeen suuri voitto 1980-luvulla, CFC-yhdisteiden käyttökielto otsonikerroksen tuhoojana uhkaa muuttua vastakohdakseen, nyt on todettu niitä korvaavien HFC-yhdisteiden olevan erittäin voimakkaita kasvihuonekaasuja. Mm.
HFC23 on 15 kertaa voimakkaammin pidättävää kuin hiilidioksidi.

TIMES


"THE green movement’s greatest triumph – the abolition of ozone-destroying CFC gases in the 1980s – may become its biggest embarrassment because of research showing that their replacements are sharply accelerating global warming"

Maa onkin Medea, ei Gaia ?

MEDEA HYPOTHESIS

(Peter Ward, a University of Washington paleontologist)


The Gaia hypothesis, named for the ancient Greek goddess of Earth, even put forth the idea that our planet behaves as a kind of giant organism, with its complex systems finely tuned to compensate when one system gets out of kilter.

But actually it is the Gaia view that is out of kilter, says Peter Ward, a University of Washington paleontologist who has looked closely at conditions that existed during numerous mass extinction events in Earth's history.

In a new book, he suggests the planet ultimately is inhospitable to life, and that life itself might be the primary reason. Rather than Gaia, he invokes the darker Medea from Greek mythology.

"The Medea hypothesis says life is already shutting down Earth as a habitable planet. Not just the diversity of life, but the actual biomass," Ward said. "Life keeps evolving, and there are unintended, often negative, consequences."

He noted that throughout Earth's history, carbon has been stripped from the atmosphere and stored in trees, rocks, even the oceans. He said those processes will continue until atmospheric carbon dioxide drops to 10 parts per million, a point at which no plants can live. Once plants are gone, within 20 million years the oxygen will plummet to 1 percent of the total atmosphere and life as we know it will end. "Then you've gotten to a point where it will be forever impossible to get diversity of life back. It will be forever impossible to regain an oxygen-rich atmosphere. That's not Gaia. It's the opposite of Gaia," he said.