The Week That Was (Jan 10, 2009) brought to you by SEPP


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Townhall Meeting of Jan 10: Change in Venue

SEPP’s initial conference will be on Saturday, Jan 10, 10AM to Noon, at the Crystal Tower Building at 1600 S. Eads St, directly across the street from the Marriott Gatewy Hotel in Arlington, VA.  It's quite close to the Crystal City Metro stop (Blue and Yellow line).  Free parking: Crystal City Underground.  It looks like we will have about 50 people attending.  There is no further need to reply.

“The NIPCC Report: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”
Philosophical Society of Washington -- Retiring President's lecture by Kenneth A. Haapala
Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM.  Powell Hall, Cosmos Club, 2121 Mass Ave NW, Wash, DC     All are welcome

Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy will hold Townhall-Style Meetings with James Taylor
"Climate Change Policy and the Economic Issues It Creates"
January 13 in Albuquerque, Albuquerque Museum, Auditorium, 200 Mountain Road, NW, Albuquerque
January 14 in Santa Fe, State Land Office, Morgan Hall,310 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe
5:00-7:00 PM.   All are welcome!  Brought to you by CARE and The Rio Grande Foundation

We wish you a Happy New Year!


Quote of the Week:

He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.” —John McCarthy (computer pioneer, Stanford Univ)


In Washington, Congress comes back --  as we await the Inauguration of Barack Obama and confirmation hearings of his Cabinet appointments:  Much discussion of prospects of tax cuts, concern about massive budget deficits, but little talk about GW


SEPP Science Editorial #2-09 (1/10/09)


Keeping the IPCC Honest – Part II


IPCC reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM), are noted for their bias in support of the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight alleged anthropogenic global warming AGW). 


The most blatant example is the Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996.  Its SPM contains the memorable phrase “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” 


This ambiguous phrase conveys a mental picture of climate scientists, preferably with gray beards, sitting around a table judging both human and natural influences, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision.  Nothing of the sort has ever happened.  The IPCC has consistently ignored the real natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially GH gases -- and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and therefore bad almost by definition. 


How then does the IPCC-SAR arrive at this “balance?”  It was done by carefully removing references to any doubt that human influences are the major or almost exclusive cause of warming.  I will quote here from the WSJ (August 13,1996) article, written by the late Professor Frederick Seitz.  He compared the draft approved by the authors of IPCC-SAR Chapter 8 (Detection and Attribution) and the final printed text.  He noted that key phrases had been deleted from the approved draft before printing. 


This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

·         “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.


If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.


In addition to these text changes there are also two key graphs that were doctored in order to convey the impression that anthropogenic influences are dominant. 


You may recall that this dishonest 1996 IPCC report played a key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  The persons responsible for making these alterations bear a heavy responsibility for misleading the Kyoto conference and for the subsequent economic damage.


1.  Obama WH: Split views on GW --NYT

2.  Greens plan to set Obama agenda –Tom Randall


3.  Science perverted in the WH? – Alan Caruba

5.  Poznan and the EU – Hans Labohm


The Heartland Institute will host its second International Conference on Climate Change, to be held once again in New York City, March 8-10. I am pleased to announce that SEPP is a co-sponsor, and having participated in the conference last year, I highly recommend that you attend this year’s meeting. Heartland’s theme this year is, Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?

The conference will feature presentations by over 70 scientists who are skeptics of the (dwindling) public perception that the world is inevitably headed towards global warming-driven catastrophe, absent mitigation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Among the top scientists who will speak will be the last living astronaut to have walked on the moon, Dr. Jack Schmitt.

Other speakers from the U.S. and around the world include Dr. Robert Balling (Arizona State University), Dr. Stanley Goldenberg (NOAA), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University), Dr. Yuri Izrael (IPCC), Dr. Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr. Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris), Dr. S. Fred Singer (Science and Environmental Policy Project), Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), and Dr. Roy Spencer (Univ of Alabama, Huntsville).

Visit Heartland’s website to learn more:


In Dec 008 the Northeastern region conducted its second carbon credit auction, raising $106 million to be divvied up this month among 10 states in the area and then used to promote clean energy technologies. That process is being viewed by the incoming presidential administration as a possible national prototype.  Most were purchased by electric utilities [which will pass the cost to ratepayers]



Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now
equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Michael Asher, Daily Tech, 1 January 2009

Dr. Patrick Frank has written a great article for Skeptic magazine:
And here's the URL for the Supporting Information, where all the analysis can be found:

Read Jim Peden’s opus magnum .


An attack on Gore?  In the Huff Post?  You must read to believe this

The alarmists are apoplectic and confused


BTW, has anyone seen Al Gore lately?

Global Warming Horror Flick Put on Ice Due to Cold Temps?
Excerpt: How embarrassing is it when you produce a horror movie based on global warming and when the time comes to release it, the planet is experiencing some of the coldest weather in decades? Such is the case with The Thaw starring Val Kilmer. Filmed in Canada last summer, it should be ready for release by now but even though the trailer has been produced, no specific release date has been announced. Perhaps the producers realize how much of a laughingstock this movie would become if a movie based on the premise of global warming were released when their potential audience is freezing.  [H/t Marc Morano]

More spin from World Meteorological. Org: 'We mustn't confuse the current weather that we're seeing with global warming' - Europe shivers, but world is getting hotter [H/t Marc Morano]
‘roo-burgers, anyone?

By JOHN M. BRODER,  January 3, 2009 

WASHINGTON - In the fall of 1997, when the Clinton administration was forming its position for the Kyoto climate treaty talks, Lawrence H. Summers argued that the United States would risk damaging the domestic economy if it set overly ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions.

Mr. Summers, then the deputy Treasury secretary, said at the time that there was a compelling scientific case for action on global warming but that a too-rapid move against emissions of greenhouse gases risked dire and unknowable economic consequences.

His view prevailed over those of officials arguing for tougher standards, among them Carol M. Browner, then the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and her mentor, Al Gore, then the vice president.

Today, as the climate-change debate once again heats up, Mr. Summers leads the economic team of the incoming administration, and Ms. Browner has been designated its White House coordinator of energy and climate policy. And Mr. Gore is hovering as an informal adviser to President-elect Barack Obama.

As Mr. Obama seeks to find the right balance between his environmental goals and his plans to revive the economy, he may have to resolve conflicting views among some of his top advisers.

While Mr. Summers's thinking on climate change has evolved over the last decade, his views on the potential risks to the economy of an aggressive effort to limit carbon emissions have not. But he now works for a president-elect who has set ambitious goals for addressing global warming through a government-run cap-and-trade system.

It may once again prove to be Mr. Summers's role to inject a rigorous economist's reality check into the debate over the scope and speed of an attack on global warming.

According to a transition official familiar with Mr. Summers's thinking, he is wary of moving very quickly on a carbon cap, because doing so could raise energy costs, kill jobs and deepen the current recession. He foresees a phase-in of several years for any carbon restraint regime, particularly if the economy continues to be sluggish, a slower timetable than many lawmakers and environmentalists are pressing.

Mr. Summers and Peter R. Orszag, the economist whom Mr. Obama has designated director of the White House budget office, have both argued that a tax on carbon emissions from burning gasoline, coal and other fuels might be a more economically efficient means of regulating pollutants than a cap-and-trade system, under which an absolute ceiling on emissions is set and polluters are allowed to buy and sell permits to meet it.

But Mr. Obama and Ms. Browner have ruled out a straight carbon tax, perhaps mindful of the stinging political defeat the Clinton administration suffered in 1993 when, prodded by Mr. Gore, it proposed one.

Mr. Obama was asked in a television interview last month whether he would consider imposing a stiff tax on gasoline, whose price has now fallen to below $2 a gallon after cresting above $4 a gallon last summer.

He replied that while American families were getting some relief at the pump, they were hurting in other ways, through rising unemployment and falling home values. "So putting additional burdens on American families right now, I think, is a mistake," he said.  At least for the present, then, the idea of a carbon tax has been shelved, and Mr. Obama's economic and environmental advisers are working, along with Congress, to devise a cap-and-trade system.

But difficult debates lie ahead within the White House, between the White House and Congress, and within the Democratic Party, whose deep divisions on climate change break down along ideological and geographical lines.

The fight in November between two Democrats, Representatives John D. Dingell of Michigan and Henry A. Waxman of California, for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a preview. It pitted lawmakers from auto- and coal-producing states against liberal lawmakers from California and the East Coast, Blue Dog fiscal conservatives against environmentalists, pro-business moderates against regulatory activists. Mr. Waxman, with the tacit support of the Obama camp and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, won, but narrowly.

That was just a taste of the broader and potentially more bitter fight over global warming and energy legislation, which will have profound implications for the American economy, the environment and foreign policy. Both sides - those seeking strict enforcement of emissions limits and those concerned about higher energy costs and potential job losses - will find receptive ears in the new White House, Obama aides and outside analysts said.

"There is a diversity of opinion among Democrats over the best way to contain costs associated with a climate change plan," said Scott Segal, a utility lobbyist in Washington, who cited rival approaches pushed by Senator Barbara Boxer of California, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  "I think there is room within the current range of administration advisers to accommodate all those points of view," Mr. Segal said.

The Obama transition did not make Ms. Browner or Mr. Summers available for on-the-record interviews. A spokesman, Nick Shapiro, said that Mr. Obama had appointed advisers with differing views but that ultimately he would set policy.  "At the end of the day," Mr. Shapiro said in an e-mail statement, "the advisers will be charged with implementing President-elect Obama's strong targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. However, the president-elect appointed a cabinet with diverse views and looks forward to strong debate within the cabinet on how best to achieve those outcomes."

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the United States in 2007 were about 15 percent above 1990's level, according to the Department of Energy.

In past public statements and writings, Ms. Browner and Mr. Summers have wrestled with the difficult choices posed by global warming and at times have come to different conclusions on how to minimize the impact on the economy.

Ms. Browner has been a forceful advocate for strict carbon limits for years and has said that a comprehensive cap-and-trade system is the best way to achieve swift and certain reductions in emissions. She has said that the plan could include flexibility for carbon-emitting businesses by allowing them to bank and borrow permits, but she has not supported setting a maximum price or "safety valve" cost in case permits become prohibitively expensive, as Mr. Summers and Mr. Orszag have.

She has urged Congress to take up the issue quickly in the new year. In September, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Browner pointedly noted that the Supreme Court had given the E.P.A. authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. She implied that if Mr. Obama was elected, the new administration might unilaterally seek to curb carbon emissions should Congress not act. "Given the magnitude of the problem, and the scale of the solution required," she said, "I believe it is important that Congress provide national leadership on this issue."

Mr. Summers believes a cap-and-trade program can be a workable solution, provided it includes some sort of escape clause if prices rise too quickly, according to several articles he has written in the past two years. He has also expressed a belief that developing nations must also adhere to carbon limits, or manufacturing jobs will migrate to countries without them.

In a forum at the Brookings Institution a year ago, Mr. Summers said the current moment on climate change was analogous to that on health care in 1992: Everyone agreed that the current system was unsustainable, but there was less agreement on how to address the complexities and costs. There was a general expectation that with the inauguration of a new Democratic president, something would be done. "In the end," Mr. Summers said, "what everyone agreed needed to happen didn't happen in 1993."

SEPP Comment:  Someone needs to educate Larry Summers (and others) about the lack of scientific evidence for AGW – and that carbon mitigation is pointless and counter to economic recovery

By Tom Randall, January 6, 2009

It has long been clear that the leadership of the major environmental groups has no interest in the environment; rather, their focus is on international governmental control of all aspects of economic and personal life.  They have now joined together to produce an environmental agenda that is set to drive the Obama White House and advance international control of all phases of public policy.

The 391-page plan, titled Transition to Green, employing Doublespeak in ways George Orwell never dreamed of, will use the economy to pursue their central-government-control agenda making their new regulations and legislation in the guise of economic stimulus.  This guise will be used to sell regulation and legislation that would otherwise be unacceptable to the public.
You can link to the entire 391-page plan at:

By Alan Caruba


Here’s part of what Barack Obama had to say when he announced the appointment of Dr. John P. Holdren to be his science adviser:
“Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—It’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

The problem with this is not that it is true but that Obama has appointed the most ideologically committed team of people to oversee the “science” his administration will champion. Here’s what Dr. John D. Holdren had to say in a commentary published in the Boston Globe:

“The few climate-change ‘skeptics’ with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media all out of proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments...The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed and continues to delay the development of the political consensus that will be needed.”

What Dr. Holdren does seem to understand or even care about is that science does not operate by consensus. That’s why a “political consensus” on global warming or as the Greens now call it—climate change—is the real danger.

The only people disinterested in the truth about the Earth’s climate are people like Dr. Holdren, Al Gore, and the rest of the crowd that has devoted itself to trumpeting completely discredited “scientific” proof that global warming is happening. The problem for them is that (a) what warming that occurred since the end of the last Little Ice Age in 1850 was completely natural, (b) there is zero proof that any element of that warming was the result of human—anthropogenic—activity, and (c)Dr. Holdren has a long track record of being wrong.

As New York Times writer, John Tierney, noted in a December 19 blog post, “Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports…that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor.” Along with fellow alarmist, Paul Ehrlich, Dr. Holdren accepted a wager with Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s to name several natural resources which would they said cost more in ten years due to scarcity. At the time, Dr. Holdren was co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California. Suffice it to say that he and Ehrlich lost the wager concerning every resource they named.

When Bjorn Lomborg published “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001, Dr. Holdren, according to Tierney, “joined in an extraordinary attack on the book in Scientific American—an attack that I thought did far more harm to the magazine’s reputation than to Dr. Lomborg’s.”

The many—they now number in the thousands—of scientists that have come forward to oppose the lies behind “global warming” or “climate change” have been continually attacked, not because the science they advance is wrong, but because it is politically wrong in the view of alarmists like Dr. Holdren.

One such brave soul is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who, along with 23 other contributors, some of whom are among the most respected atmospheric scientists, authored a rebuke to the years of falsified data put forth in reports by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its summary is titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”

Recently, two full-time abusers of the truth, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, attacked Dr. Singer and the study that found the United Nations’ IPCC reports, the basis for the Kyoto Protocol and “global warming” alarms, were filled with errors and distortions.

As Joseph Bast and James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute point out, Mann is the author of a “hockey stick” temperature graph that was used by the IPCC to fuel global-warming hysteria, “but which a Congressionally appointed panel of experts found was not supported by scientific data.” Schmidt, a climate modeler for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies “has in recent weeks been frantically trying to explain why his organization falsely reported that October 2008 was the warmest October in recorded history.”

That’s how these global warming folks operate. If they can’t get the science to support their grand hoax, they work to get themselves close to people of power where they can use the power of government to continue their lies and attack the truth-tellers.

President-elect Obama is totally committed to the global warming hoax. He has now surrounded himself with a who’s who of environmental loonies and a perversion of science will be the predictable outcome.




Guest Weblog by Hendrik Tennekes (former director of research, Dutch Meteorological Institute)


My weblogs of 28 October and 7 November, and an incisive two-page centerfold article by Karel Knip in the November 8 issue of NRC/ Handelsblad**, Rotterdam’s counterpart to the New York Times, finally received a clear response from KNMI, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.


In a November 10 message to the director-in-chief of KNMI, I suggested that the Institute should contemplate issuing a low-end estimate for sea-level rise, in order to balance the alarmist furore sweeping the country. This is exactly what KNMI decided to do. In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes:


“In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”


[SEPP: This opinion, of course, chimes with the statement by NIPCC]


“Fortunately, the time rate of climate change is slow compared to the life span of the defense structures along our coast. There is enough time for adaptation. We should monitor the situation carefully, but up to now climate change does not cause severe problems for our coastal defense system. IPCC has given lower estimates for the expected sea level rise in four successive reports.”


As far as I am concerned, this settles the matter. KNMI has spoken. It has spoken clearly. There is no imminent danger of accelerated sea-level rise.



The following appeared on  Jan. 5th in the “Financieele Dagblad”, the Dutch equivalent of Canada’s Financial Post. The author is economist-columnist Hans Labohm who keeps the torch of Climate Scepticism high in the Netherlands.  The piece gives a more objective look at the results of last month’s meetings in Poznan and Brussels than the releases by the organisers of those events.

The [Dutch] Minister of the Environment, Jacqueline Cramer, spoke words of praise about the recent EU Climate Agreement, in which goals were established under which by 2020 the EU would reduce its CO2 emissions by 20%, would produce 20% of its energy from non-carbon sources, and reduce energy consumption by 20%. She rated the agreement as “historic”.

The agreement was indeed historic, but in a different way than suggested by the Minister. In the “small print” which is part of the compromise, the EU said farewell to its isolated position in the world of climate management. Indeed, important sectors of European industry will be exempted from the compulsory purchase of CO2 -emission permits, in order not to be disadvantaged against foreign competitors who will not participate in the Kyoto Protocol.


Even more important is the inclusion of a revision clause in the agreement, as a reaction to German, Italian and Polish objections. This clause subjects the European goals to the results of the worldwide UN Climate Conference which will take place in Copenhagen in December 2009. If no agreement were to be achieved there – which is probable – the provisional EU-compromise will also be opened up again.


In climate discussions, holding back crucial information is common practice. Average world temperature has decreased over the past ten years and astronomers expect further cooling. Those who depend exclusively on the official climate information are not aware of such facts.  There is an urgent need for the climate-establishment to provide honest information on the climate “problem” to the public and politicians.


It is questionable whether this Minister is as yet capable of making this turn-around. She is so caught up in her own virtual reality that it will be most difficult to extract herself from it.


Translated from the Dutch by Albert Jacobs (Calgary)



By Alan Caruba


Okay, children, let’s all sit up straight at our desks. We are going to begin 2009 with a lesson about carbon dioxide (CO2).


Why do we need to know about CO2? Because the President-elect, several of his choices for environmental and energy agencies, the Supreme Court, and much of the U.S. Congress have no idea what they are talking about and, worse, want to pass legislation and regulations that will further bankrupt the United States of America.


Do I have your attention now?


For the purpose of the lesson, I will be borrowing heavily from a paper on CO2 written by Robert A. Ashworth []. It requires some understanding of science, but anyone with a reasonable education and common sense should be able to read it on their own. Ashworth is a chemical engineer.


Suffice it to say that if any of the nitwits babbling about CO2 and global warming ever went to any of the several dozen excellent websites that provide accurate scientific data and analysis, they would cease from their abusive manipulation of the public and perhaps find honest work.


To begin at the beginning; at the heart of the global warming hoax is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While it purports to represent the views of thousands of scientists, it does not. As Ashworth notes, “Most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise. In the United States 31,072 scientists, including the author, have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement.” An additional 1,000 scientists are being verified to be added to the list. Thousands more exist who find the assertion that CO2 will destroy the Earth totally absurd.


Here’s what you need to know:  If an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) is directly related, i.e. causes changes in the Earth’s temperature, there would be a direct correlation between the two. As CO2 rose, we would see a comparable rise in the Earth’s temperature. This correlation does not exist.


Global warming liars, however, insist that CO2 builds up on the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is untrue. “Every year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere,” notes Ashworth, “and the reduction continues until around mid-to-late August when plants start to go dormant.”


“It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.” Farmers call this the growing season, followed by the harvest season, followed by snow and cold during which nothing grows. Modern civilization, beginning about 5,000 years ago, is predicated on the ability to provide food to both humans and livestock, all based on these obvious seasonal cycles.


The ancient Egyptians and Mayans understood the seasons, but they are apparently too difficult a concept for today’s many ex-politicians, some PhD’s, United Nation’s flunkies, and high-school teachers.


Warming and cooling cycles are well known throughout human history, reaching back to the days of ancient Rome. There were Viking settlements in Greenland because they arrived in warmer times. By 1410 the place froze up. Shakespeare lived during a Little Ice Age when the Thames would freeze too. The man-made emissions of CO2 had nothing, zero, to do with these climate events.


The IPCC, however, with its agenda to tax and control energy use that produces CO2, is not based on either the obvious or more complex science involved. Its “data” is the invention of computer models that are deliberately manipulated to produce false results which, in turn, can be announced worldwide.


In March 2008, The Heartland Institute brought together more than 500 climatologists, meteorologists, economists, and others for two days of seminars and addresses that totally destroyed the IPCC’s lies. It will do so again for a second time, March 8-10 of this year in New York City. Suffice it to say that the mainstream media did its best to ridicule or ignore the event and will no doubt do so again.


Here, then, is a fundamental fact about CO2 you need to commit to memory. “Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man.” Nature is a totally self-regulating mechanism that dwarfs any mindless effort to “control” the amount of CO2 produced by coal-fired utilities, steel manufacturers, autos and trucks, and gasoline-fueled lawn mowers, not to forget fireplaces where logs glow or just about any human activity you can name, including exhaling two pounds of the stuff every day!


“Further,” says Ashworth, “no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on Earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food.”


“Taxing carbon,” Ashworth adds, “would do absolutely nothing to improve the climate but would be devastating hardship to the people of the world.”  For example, U.S. Representative John Dingell’s plan to tax carbon would add 13% to the cost of electricity and 32% to the cost of gasoline; just what we need during a Recession that threatens to become a Depression.


Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently asked, “How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions, and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant.”


It is time to rebuke everyone attempting to foist the global warming hoax and carbon taxes on the United States and the rest of the world. It is time let Congress and the White House know that Americans will not be ruled by laws that have no scientific merit.


Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center,


Excerpts from Prof. John Brignell’s ‘Numberwatch’

This is a word redolent of the state of contemporary science. It is a political word, not a scientific one. Most of the great innovations in science have been by individuals, or very small groups, striking out from the prevailing opinion to establish new frontiers. As Einstein is reputed to have remarked, when the Nazis published a book in which one hundred German scientists pronounced him wrong, “It only needed one of them to be right.”

There was indeed a “consensus” in physics at the start of the twentieth century that “the science is settled”, but that was blown apart by Einstein and his contemporaries. Most of the great breakthroughs in science are made by those who are in a minority of one. The moral pressure to join the consensus and support the establishment view is substantial, even carrying the threat of dismissal. Such things have no place in a free society. This is not persuasion, it is enforcement.

Research funding is exclusively given to proponents of establishment theories and denied to opponents. It is a remarkable tribute to the human spirit that so many dare stand up to the bullies and accept the contemptuous label of “denialist” (not that the general public ever get to hear of them). Others, who have family responsibilities, have to preserve their reservations for private conversation.

As for the accompanying slogan “The science is settled”, if it is settled it is not science and if it is science it is not settled.

DEBATE:  A crucial component of real science is debate. At the 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference, the world's most notable physicists met to discuss the new quantum theory. Einstein found himself defending classical physics against his good friend Niels Bohr. Einstein, dissenting from new concepts such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, remarked "God does not play dice." Bohr replied, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do." Ultimately, seventeen of the twenty-nine participants were Nobel Prize winners.

That is the way science solves its great controversies. A conference is held, at which the opposing factions question each other’s position, and in the end a solution is reached. Propagandists, however, do not like debate.

In 2005 in the UK two conferences occurred. One was a modest affair organised by scientists for scientists. Most participants were there under their own financial steam. The speakers were distinguished real scientists (as opposed to "climate" scientists), who presented evidence -  numbers, charts and photographs. The other was a lavish three-day, politically-inspired festival subsidised by the Government, with an elaborate banquet and not a dissenting voice. Such evidence as was presented was highly selective, though most of the claims arose from computer models. Guess which one received coverage by the environmental editors.

Then there is pseudo-debate, in which the BBC specialises. A believer is put up against a non-believer, then scrupulous editing ensures that one looks like the fount of wisdom and the other looks foolish.