Battle of the Graphs

Battle of the Graphs
The top graph is the one the IPCC and Al Gore uses, the bottom contains the actual temperatures recorded from the past 1000 years

CO2 is not the enemy in North Carolina!

If we do not de-rail the man made global warming locomotive that North Carolina legislators have put into motion, $4 a gallon gasoline is only the tip of the iceburg! Join me and let's end this hoax in North Carolina.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

An author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says 20 years of cooling instead!

Now if you remember the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change stated that the commission never really debated the issue of whether man made climate change was real, instead they went off of the data gathered from the computer models of the IPCC, which incidentally is the same data that Al Gore's Nobel prize is based on. And is also the same data that the Cap and Trade legislation is based on which will increase North Carolinian's power bills by $1700 a family! Well now the number 2 author of the IPCC report, Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, now reverses his prediction from warming to cooling!


"One of the world's top climate modelers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

And David Archibald has actually been predicting the same cooling trend for the last 3 to 4 years by examining Sun cycles.

Will anybody on the NCCGC acknowledge this breaking news? Will it change anything they do? I will send each an email to ask for their comments and post any responses I get, but I not going to hold my breath.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Open Letter to Congress from several highly credentialed scientists

The following letter was first posted by Gabriel Rychert check out his Facebook site called: "Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief"

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent.

This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are: The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren?

We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. AustinProfessor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASAmerican Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William HapperCyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASMember National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of VirginiaFirst Director of the National Weather Satellite ServiceFellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. CohenManager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)Fellow APS

Harold W. LewisProfessor of Physics EmeritusUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraFellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould Professor of PhysicsUniversity of Hartford Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard LindzenAlfred P. Sloan Professor of MeteorologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMSMember Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Member National Academy of Sciences

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

What Every Legislator Should Know About Climate Change

This is a response from John Casey, engineer, and former NASA advisor, currently the Director of the Space and Science Research Center in Orlando. FL when I asked him what are the most important things for any legislator to know currently about the man-made climate change hypothesis.

1. Global warming has ended.

2. The Earth's temperature average is on a long term down trend.

3. One of the most amazing events in the history of modern science, a "solar hibernation" has begun, and with it will come decades of deep, long cold as it always,always, does once hibernations begin. Anyone who accepts these three fundamental and easily verifiable truths of climate change, must also accept that the Sun and not mankind rules the climate variations on our planet.

Here are a few more very important aspects of the next climate change that they should know:

4. Greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 had little effect in the past period of warming of the Earth caused primarily by the Sun, and will likewise have no tangible beneficial effect in keeping us warmer during the next cold climate era.

5. The next cold era which has already started, will bring the coldest weather in over 200 years.

6. The next cold climate era will have the potential to cause massive crop damage world wide causing the worst subsistence crisis in recorded human history.

7. Legislative action to control something that does not exist (i.e. global warming) not only creates a complete embarrassment of our nation's democratic processes upon which I believe voters will soon seek revenge, but will also cause historians to judge today's politicians with great distain in that their attempts to control climate will have made the suffering of countless unprepared and unaware citizens so much worse during the first cold climate period of the 21st century.

These truths have been my consistent message for the past two plus years.We need all to know what is happening with the Sun and what it will mean to us, our children, and grandchildren.Your help in helping spread this word will serve all well.

Best Regards,
John Casey

Monday, June 29, 2009

The EPA has been caught in an blatant COVER UP of reports skeptical of man-made global warming.

June 26, 2009 11:09 PM

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

Posted by Declan McCullagh

(CBS/AP/iStockphoto)

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17:

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself.

"It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said.

"That was obviously coming from higher levels." E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. "I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change."

One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead. For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT.

His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing. After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research.

"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature. If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming. Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding." That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author:

"I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process.

Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision. "All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues." The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life." "All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.