Comments for Skeptics Global Warming

Comment on More Trouble for IPCC Consensus: Cosmic Pattern to UK Tree Growth by Richard James

Richard James — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:05:23 +0000

Some quality control please. If Dengel et al had found evidence of global warming, the paper would have been shredded by McIntyre and friends. By ignoring autocorrelation, the risk of a Type I error is substantial.

Comment on India to Set Up Climate Research Institute to Counter Western Bias by paja

paja — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:00:21 +0000

This is great work. The whole global warming is propagated by the rothschild family. They own the carbon tax companies, that will benefit if carbon trading is implemented.

So to fight the global warming colonialism has to be based on knowledge alone.

Comment on Deep Oil Rush: Future Supplies Only a Question of Economics by keyboard jockey

keyboard jockey — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:02:25 +0000

Photos from the G20 Pittsburgh Protest, from the scene guest blogger “Terrible Towel. I am going to try and update through the day as I get the pics.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/09/pittsburgh-g20-photos-from-steel-town.html

Comment on Computer Modelers Wipe Out Humanity, Again by tm

tm — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:26:37 +0000

Sounds like what they are going to do to the Swine Flue people. Must have planed the new program on this study.

Comment on Opinion: It’s Time to Drop the Hype and Get Real About Climate Change by Ayrdale

Ayrdale — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:42:53 +0000

Thank you, I appreciate your insight, and have referred to it with quotes at my blog.

Comment on Climate Bill ‘Out of Control’, Bill Clinton’s Climate Negotiator Says by Jay Trieb

Jay Trieb — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:58:18 +0000

I hope the powers that be realize that intelligent people see “Climate Change” for what it is: cycles that the earth has gone through countless times over its existence. And we can’t do anything about it.

Comment on Forget Kyoto: Record Rise of Global CO2 Emissions by sabreTruthTiger

sabreTruthTiger — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:49:50 +0000

Global warming is a scam, fact. The global temperature is decreasing not increasing!!!! The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using microwave sounding units show no appreciable temperature increases, especially during the critical period 1978-97 when surface temperatures jumped, which makes it likely that that surface anomaly was due to Urban Heat Island effect. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation. The PDO coincides with Global temperatures and has turned negative in the last few years along with Global temperatures.
The models also ignored the significant effect of solar radiation ions that cause clusters of Ozone, Sulphur Dioxide, and water vapour that attract water vapour and form clouds. Studies on the Greenland Ice shelf show there is no increased velocity of ice movement whatsoever! According to the erroneously named “Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet” There was one extremely and suspicious large ice movement over one week in Aug 2006, but up until and since then it’s been as it always was.
The idea that the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause more water vapour to form which in turn would block (OLR)outgoing long wave radiation creating GW is false. As Upper level temperature and CO2 have increased, water vapour has a tendency to decrease in the Upper Troposphere which overall allows the same amount of OLR to escape.
The Climate models also predict an unrealistic amount of water vapour in the upper atmosphere due to faulty sub-grid parameterization and the overestimation of the role of cumulonimbus convection in bringing vapour to the upper atmosphere.
Cumulonimbus convection only occurs in 2-3 percent of the global area, The mass that goes up in the deep convective clouds is then advected out and sinks due to radiational cooling and the need for mass balance. ALSO the Cumulonimbus convection actually leads to more return flow subsidence, enhance upper level subsidence actually acts to REDUCE upper layer water vapour and enhances the Outgoing Longwave Radiation!!
The grid which is a Global unit of area measurement in the Climate models does not take into account sub-grid convective/subsidence and produces a false average activity. These faulty parameterization schemes underestimate the amount of
activity and Outgoing Longwave Radiation and lead to a warmng effect. The Models also predict a large corelation between the upper and lower Troposphere which causes them to artificially moisten the Upper region when in actual fact observations show little or no correlation! This is important as it’s not the total amount of precipital water that matters(this goes up with temperature) but the amount near the Upper Tropospheric emission level that’s important as this determines the amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation.

Computer models also predict that Greenhouse wrming will cause a hotspot between 8-12 kms over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. This hotspot has been proven not to exist!

To Summarise: 1.Global temperatures are decreasing

2. Oceanic Oscillations, most notably the PDO play a much bigger part in Global temperature than CO2.

3. Solar radiation plays a bigger part in Global Temperature than CO2

4. Greenland Ice is not increasing in velocity.

5. Ice samples prove Global temperature changes precede CO2 changes showing that CO2is not the major driver of climate change.

6. Relative humidity in the Upper Troposphere is incorrectly predicted by Computer models,using faulty sub-grid parameterization, and incorrectly ignoring the Cumulonimbus convective subsidence effect, also ignoring the radiative cooling effects of the upper Troposphere region. These errors lead to exaggerated water vapour, Outgoing Longwave Radiation and thus warming.

Conclusion: Such scientifically erroneous procedures and conclusions are most likely politically motivated and part of a scheme to make billions/trillions from carbon taxes, raising power/food prices and providing a threat that scares the population into letting the government pass restrictive laws

Comment on The Greening of The Deserts by stas peterson

stas peterson — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:14:23 +0000

It constantly amazes me how AGW people think, or rather don’ think. They have their religious faith and believe in Global Warming that can accelerate to dangerous levels only by massive water evaporation.
They never conclude that what goes up must come down.
And the evaporated water MUST fall back to Earth as rain or snow. A warmer World 70% of which is covered with water, must be a wetter world as well.

Comment on Editorial: The Rise of the Carbon Oligarchs by Mark E. Gillar

Mark E. Gillar — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:17:19 +0000

Let President Barack Obama know that you do not want your monthly electric bills to “skyrocket” by signing the petition against a global warming tax:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/capandtrade/signatures.html

Comment on Veteran Newsman Launches Withering Attack on BBC’s Green Bias by Cassandrina

Cassandrina — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:17:49 +0000

Standards have fallen – dumbing down more likely.
Listened to Radio 3 yesterday and found it much more up market than Radio 4, though limited.

We need to clear them out and surprisingly the new “culture” minister (surely an oxymoron) has had a go at the incompetent Lyons and Thompson.
Though I suspect this could be just a spat between close allies.

Comment on Opinion: Reason Clouded by Carbon by JustAl

JustAl — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:57:10 +0000

Opps, forgot the link:http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/25year/AIR.PDF

Comment on Opinion: Reason Clouded by Carbon by JustAl

JustAl — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:56:43 +0000

I agree that particulate is a much bigger issue in air quality but also want to point out the gains made by the US in this regard.

Granted this paper from EPA is from 1995 but it shows a dramatic decline in particulates in the US. Further evidence that if pollution is the threat to the world presented by the alarmists, it should be the Chinese who are confronted about it.

Comment on G8 Emissions Pledge Unravels as Russia Objects by peterdublin

peterdublin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:13:03 +0000

Re Russia etc – exactly, emission reduction could be much simpler!

…….
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. ………………………………………………..

The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages – apart from lowering CO2 emissions:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.

3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, “best practice” results can be compared and shared.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Funding and Impact
= Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost ………………………………………………

Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand – together with extensive -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.
………………………………………………………………………..

Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

………………………….. The Way Forward
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation

Comment on Antarctic Ice Shelves Show No Sign of Climate Change by hidflect

hidflect — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:03:17 +0000

I studied at Curtin University. It wasn’t bad but I felt it was a little too close to business interests when it came to funding. CO2 probably isn’t causing global warming.. but global warming IS happening. And as Wholesale Printing infers; it’s probably a good idea anyway to limit trash.

Comment on China Blasts U.S. Climate Bill, Carbon Tariffs by smith

smith — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:12:32 +0000

Thanks for sharing this nice information and i am agree with the views of vice foreign minister He Yafei.

Comment on Antarctic Ice Shelves Show No Sign of Climate Change by Wholesale Printing

Wholesale Printing — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:29:20 +0000

Global Warming are explained by science that it causes climate change through out the world. They say the cause of this Global Warming is any kind of pollution. i myself is trying to help in my own little way by not throwing trash everywhere. I think all people should do it to.

Comment on US-China Climate Talks Deadlocked by Chan

Chan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:09:14 +0000

Why doesn’t my last comment appear here???

Comment on US-China Climate Talks Deadlocked by Chan

Chan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:44:33 +0000

This article is yet another example of the media trying to vilify the Chinese and its government.

The article clearly seem to portray the US as the ‘good’ guy and China as the ‘bad’ guy on environmenal issues. This is even more apparent on the 2nd last paragraph. The paragraph (” … code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt … to reduce its carbon emissions.”) is clearly designed to mislead the public and fan anger at China and the Chinese government. In fact, what they didn’t say is that :

(1) China is by far one of the largest (if not THE largest) investor in green energy in the entire world.

(2) On top of that, China has just announced YET another US$440bn to expand its renewable energy use. As far as I know, no other country on this planet even come close.

(3) China’s commitment to fight climate change didn’t just start today. Even back in 2006, China’s efforts to fight climate change was ahead of most countries. Back then, China unilaterally kicked off the most aggressive energy-efficiency program in the history of the entire world, which aimed to produce carbon dioxide emissions reduction almost 5 TIMES greater than the ENTIRE European Union had committed to achieve under the Kyoto Protocol.

(4) On top of all this, China which was already by far the world’s leader in thermonuclear fusion technology in 2007, is also going to contribute billions in the world’s most expensive clean energy project (ITER) together with a few other countries. This clean energy project was originally spearheaded by NONE OTHER THAN China in 2006 to create the so-called “artificial sun”.

————————————–

I have to wonder if the reason for the US to go to China for negotiations is not to save the world from global warming, but to save itself from the embarrasements in Copenhagen this December, because the US simply cannot match the efforts of the Chinese government.

Comment on Campaigners Fear Obama Will Settle for Climate Deal with China by Jars Jensen

Jars Jensen — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:18:09 +0000

I strongly hope that whatever will be the outcome of this issue will be the best interest of each and every individual and not for their own self interest. We are having economic crisis and I am hoping that they will act accordingly to this issue. Thanks

Comment on Campaigners Fear Obama Will Settle for Climate Deal with China by Ken

Ken — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:00:50 +0000

The reason that there is no progress on a climate deal is that the Green movement has made too many fatal errors and the public does not trust the Greens anymore. They began by hiring one of the most untrustworthy salesmen in the world to sell the emissions cap idea (A. Gore). The UN IPCC tells the world that the money from Cap&Trade will be transferred to poor nations so they can take jobs away from Americans. They keep screaming that any scientist who dissents from the AGW herd is being paid by Exxon (if I had a dollar for every time I heard that one). They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change and now it’s ‘Deteriorating Atmosphere’, to fool the public somehow. One of the worst blunders was when they somehow conned a US judge into declaring C02 a toxic pollutant. That one damaged the Green movement terribly because even the Greenies didn’t buy that story, and it made the Green movement appear to be employing subterfuge. The media would pick up a Climate Change study and report only the scariest parts of it, when you actually read the study it didn’t say half of what the media reported. All of the scare mongering and media hype has made the public distrust anything Environmentalists say now. The list is endless. The green movement has been dying the death of a thousand cuts. I have little hope now of an emissions law in the USA this year, I think it will die in the Senate.