Who Needs a Presidential Committee on Climate Security?

If you have listened carefully to President Trump, you know that he regards Climate Change as a hoax. To evaluate his view properly requires us to look back to 1992 and the United Nations Earth Conference in Rio de Janeiro. The conference was headed up by a high school dropout from Canada, Maurice Strong, an adviser to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN at the time. Some would say that this was the beginning of man-made Climate Change as an international, global concern.

It was documented in the Framework Convention on Climate Change or FCCC. Other documents like the Biodiversity Convention and Agenda 21 were developed and introduced at the convention using the FCCC as justification. In a nutshell, the entire planet would be transformed, under the control of the UN, because of a thing called
Climate Change. Since its early beginnings, the UN’s scientists have not only evaluated the problem, but they also defined the government policy to resolve it. That is extremely unusual in science. As Dr. Judith Curry noted in a recent interview, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”
The Biodiversity and Agenda 21 documents have a lot in common with Ocasio Cortez’s New Green Deal. So you can see where the originators of Climate Change were coming from. They were Socialists. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Earth Conference, was famous for saying, “ Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

One can legitimately question science that is based on such a beginning. It is noteworthy that Maurice Strong founded the Chicago Climate Exchange after leaving the UN and became a very rich person selling indulgences related to a policy he helped create. He then moved to China where his money was very welcome. A minor detail was that the US government indicted Strong for his part in the UN Oil For Food Scandal.
Every 5 years, or so, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Publishes a “scientific” document called an Assessment Report. Scientists from around the planet develop an incredible scientific document that most find to be substantially valid. Then the UN develops the Summary for Policymakers written by policy makers from the member nations. Once that document is approved, the entire Assessment report is gone over, word by word, so that none of the actual science conflicts with the Summary for Policymakers. They actually change the science to agree with the policy. I repeat, “The policy cart is leading the scientific horse.” This is not science. This is politics.

President Trump has every right to question such a system that has a pedigree like this. The PCCS is the first opportunity to evaluate the climate dogma, and with a foundation as I have described, it is long overdue. If you agree that an PCCS investigation is in order, tell the Whitehouse at 202-456-1111 or email here. And do it today.

 

Read Full Post »

James Hansen, how low can you go?

In an email from the desk of James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, there was an interview by  Bill McKibben, co-founder and  global organizer of 350.org.  Hansen, in the introduction cited McKibben’s organization as having demonstrated the most effective leadership in the public struggle for climate justice. Climate Justice?  Has a crime been committed? Sorry I missed that. Perhaps it was the advocacy that Hansen has promoted while being in the employ of the government.

He goes on to discuss the efforts by legitimate scientists, whose only crime is to disagree with him, referring to them as “swift boaters”. I read the book which was the story of the real John Kerry in Vietnam and it was the most heavily footnoted book I have read outside of a college textbook. The references were unimpeachable, mostly government records. For Hansen to at once denigrate these fine heroes of an unpopular war and by the same brush, legitimate scientists, is about as low as you can go. It should be noted that Dr. Hansen was John Kerry’s climate guru in his unsuccessful bid to be President. Hansen received something like $750,000 for his efforts from the Heinz Foundation.

One of Hansen’s comments,

If we let warming continue to the point  of rapid ice sheet collapse, all hell will break loose.

Of course ice sheets are floating so levels of the sea won’t rise. The albedo might be lowered but clouds would likely cover that as has been observed.

There was a real hoax, for sure perpetrated on the public by people who prefer business-as usual. People who concocted a misinformation campaign. They want the public to think that the science is suspect. Doubt is all they need. Their tactics included swift-boating and character assassination, using emails stolen from scientists computers. They did an effective job. Now policy makers continue to sit on their hands, leaving fossil fuel subsidies in place, allowing fuel companies to call the tune-and the devil with young people and nature.

  Those are pretty strong words James. Especially since there is not one shred of evidence to support even one word. Again calling the scientists swift-boaters, accusing them of character assassination and stealing Emails. I never saw any of the skeptic scientists assassinate anyone’s character and there is no evidence that the release was anything but an inside job by an individual that perhaps developed a conscience. What no one mentions are the files that were in the pirated information. If you think the emails were a bombshell, the files constituted global nuclear annihilation. They were interesting reading. You can find my stories on these under my Examiner articles under National Environmental Policy Examiner

 

 

 

 

Hansen goes on to discuss the 2035 deadline for Himalayan glacier melting but forgot to mention that a key author was well aware of the problem but failed to call it to the attention of outsiders because, ostensibly, of its importance to the whole picture they were painting. Hansen then goes on to foster the impression of drinking water disappearing based on the same old sad tale that got them into trouble in the first place. He further states that glaciers melting confirms global warming. Duh? That is what happens in interglacial periods. Truth is the total ice mass balance in the planet has remained nearly constant since measurements began. He can pick any local situation but we should look at the big picture. Isn’t that what you have claimed Dr. Hansen?

He then goes into a long rather boring discussion on CO2 concentrations based on the discredited Vostok/ Law dome ice core measurements. There has been no paper written that compares the CO2 levels found in ice cores (especially grossly deteriorated ones) with the air concentration at the time the ice was formed. That is an unproven hypothesis, just like anthropogenic global warming with all its unproven hypothetical positive feedbacks. Several scientists have suggested that CO2 may actually cool the Earth through increased transpiration in plant life. So the sign of the change is not known.

He then discusses his potential court case and the possibility of a year in jail. My take on that, “No comment.” I won’t go that low.

Now if Dr. Hansen would care to debate a sceptic scientist and play fair, I’d be happy to arrange that. I would have many takers on that offer. Lord Monkton has already accepted on a previous occasion.

Dr. Hansen, I can accept that you believe in what you are doing. As a scientist you should accept that reasonable scientists might disagree with you. There is no call to denigrate them and call them names accusing them of  all manner of evil intentions. If I have mischaracterized any of the points in this article, please allow me to correct them. I am just calling this as I see it and it doesn’t come off looking too fine.

Read Full Post »

Some Problems with the AGW Claims

As we have noted, there have been other claims of man causing climate change. There was media hype in 1895 of an upcoming ice age. Then came warming, then cooling again and finally warming again. Four times! And each time we look at it like it was the first time. Climate changes all the time.

One of the signatures of a Green House Gas induced warming, according to the IPCC,  is that the upper troposphere would warm at 2 to 3 times the rate of warming of the surface. Not that the temperature would be higher. Just the rate of increase. In the temperature record, the upper troposphere has been almost flat and this is supposed to be the signature effect! This in itself should be enough to kill the entire idea but apparently it is not.

The AGW hype comes across as more of a religion than science. Al says it is a moral issue. Most, but not all, AGW advocates say there should be no debate. I read several scientific facts per week that support the sceptic or rationalist’s position. New information is being discovered daily. The science should never be settled.

A key point of the AGW  claims is that there is nothing else that could cause it and the warming is happening. For instance, the claim is that the sun’s variation in irradiance is not sufficient to account for the changes being observed. Really? What they miss here are the indirect effects of the solar magnetic field, erratic solar orbits, length of solar cycles, polarity changes in the sun’s magnetic fields, the link between the Earth’s magnetic field and that of the Sun, the variation in length of day (not hours of light, the 24hr+ total) and the overall effect on galactic cosmic rays (GCR) that affect cloud formation. Add all these up and you have some powerful effects. More than enough to account for the modest warming being measured. One of my favorite quotes is by Oliver Manuel, “Compared to cosmic rays, CO2 has about as much effect on climate as the weight of a flea on an elephant.” Says it all. Here is a paper on solar effects/orbits:

 http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

Speaking of being measured, we are told the Earth is warming. But is it? We are told that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well accounted and adjusted for. There are many that have significant problems with the allowance the IPCC applies to this. There are many more sites in the US than in any other portion of the globe. There are parts of the globe where there are no temperature stations. Those temperatures are determined from adjacent squares in the grid. Many stations are inappropriately placed and poorly maintained. The net effect of most of these issues is an uncorrected increase in temperature. Since the measured global temperature has been pretty flat since 1998, despite a 4% increase in CO2 concentration, maybe the Earth is actually cooling. In my humble opinion, that is a very likely possibility.

Throw in that aerosols, once thought to offset the warming, may actually be augmenting the warming. That land use is considered a negative effect by the IPCC, yet the UHI effect is a part of that and it is definitely a positive forcing. Also the IPCC has discarded the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that appeared in previous Assessment reports. I believe they became an Inconvenient Truth. To support their claim of warming they start most of their temperature charts at 1860 which just happens to be the minimum of the Little Ice Age. Isn’t that convenient. Move the starting point back a few hundred years and we might be wondering when we will get back to the warm times.

These problems bring into question the claims of AGW and we should be cautious in spending $Billions to solve what is probably natural variation. Kyoto, if followed to the letter, would destroy economies and have a negligible effect on the alleged warming. Wouldn’t we be better off spending the money on making inexpensive, plentiful energy available to the masses?

Cheers,

Kirtland Griffin

Read Full Post »