Watts Up With That?
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

BOB ZELLAR/Gazette Staff

Vehicles drive through the snow and slush Highway 3 between Zimmerman Trail and the airport Friday October 10, 2008.

Here in Northern California, we are getting some much earlier than normal cold weather. As you can see on my Bidwell Ranch Weather Station, we got into the 30’s last night, not a record, but darned early for fall weather here:

Russ Steele reports on his Nevada County Watch blog that his first freeze came last night, about a month early. Also a hat tip to him for alerting me to this story.
Pamela Gray in comments points out this record report from the NWS:

00SXUS76 KPDT 111801RERPDT

RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PENDLETON OR1100 AM PDT SAT OCT 11 2008…NEW DAILY RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES FOR OCTOBER 11TH…
NOTE: STATIONS MARKED WITH * INDICATE THAT THE STATION REPORTS ONCEPER DAY. FOR CONSISTENCY…THESE VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVEOCCURRED ON THE DAY THE OBSERVATION WAS TAKEN BUT MAY HAVE ACTUALLYOCCURRED (ESPECIALLY FOR MAX TEMPERATURE) ON THE PREVIOUS DAY.

STATION PREVIOUS NEW RECORDSRECORD/YEAR RECORD BEGAN
*JOHN DAY(CITY), OR 23 / 1990 21 1953MEACHAM, OR 20 / 2002 15 1948 :SINCE MID*MITCHELL, OR 26 / 2002 21 1949PENDLETON(ARPT), OR 33 / 1990 25 1934 :SINCE MID*PENDLETON(CITY), OR 24 / 1890 22 1890*PENDLETON(ES), OR 23 / 1990 18 1956WALLA WALLA, WA 35 / 1987 33 1949 :SINCE MID

Harbinger of a colder than normal winter perhaps.

Earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service.

Watts Up With That?
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

Boise gets earliest snow on record, record cold in Oregon, Washington

12 10 2008
From the Idaho Statesman:

Valley shivers as winter weather makes a premature appearance

Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work. The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages.

This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969, when a little more than an inch fell. And if the snow wasn’t enough, meteorologists say winds across southwestern Idaho will average 25 to 40 mph through Saturday afternoon, with gusts up to 55 mph. Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph are expected, which can make driving difficult.

There is also some early and record snows in Billings Montana
A snowfall record for Oct. 11 was set in Billings yesterday.

According the National Weather Service, Billings saw 3.1 inches of snow Friday. The old record of 2.8 inches was set in 1969.

NASA's Dr. David Hathaway cannot provide any clear scientific evidence that green house gases are driving climate change.

This is a brief conversation with NASA's David Hathaway. As you will see, NC C02 Debate gave him an opportunity to direct us to ANY clear evidence that green house gases are actually driving climate change and he could not provide an answer. Interestingly, he did indicate that the Sun does affect climate change. Here is NC CO2 Debate's
initial email to Dr. Hathaway:

Dr Hathaway,

I am NOT a scientist. However I am a tax paying citizen of North Carolina who plainly sees that the only "consensus" on man-made climate change is the one that is contained within the media pundits. Your group is the expert when it comes to our Sun. In May of 2006 you wrote:

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries." Dr David Hathaway, NASA Web Release, May 2006."

The Director of The Space and Science Research Center, John Casey, has drawn the following conclusion from your research, in regards to how the Sun's cycle will affect our planet's climate:

"We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. They will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet."

Would you care to comment, for the record, on Mr. Casey's conclusions?


Dr Hathaway's initial response:

"His conclusion is based on the hypothesis that solar variability (the sunspot cycle) is the controlling factor in climate change. While there is evidence that solar variability does affect climate to some degree, it also appears that other factors – volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina, and greenhouse gases play more significant roles."

NCC02debate's follow up question (that Hathaway never responded to):

When you state that GHG's play a more significant role in global warming is your opinion informed from the IPCC data? So far every time I am able to get to the heart of all the newly formed government agencies in North Carolina to deal with the imminent doom of GW, they always end up pointing back to the fatally flawed computer models of the IPCC. Meantime, the American Northwest had its 2nd coolest Spring since 1894, Sydney Australia had its coolest Summer in 50 years, South Africa had its coldest day in September in recorded history with record snowfalls, and your agencies data suggests the ice cap has increased by 30%. I see a global trend here, but it is not looking very warm. Can you point me to any hard scientific evidence, published in a peer reviewed journal that links rising amounts of GHG's with anything more that a slight increase in global temperature?

But don't think that will stop the state from taxing us, and our businesses, for this newest pollutant. Write your legislators and ask them why they are spending our tax dollars to control c02 when there has been NO public debate of the issue?

Part of South Africa had the coldest day in September in RECORDED HISTORY!

Surprise spring snowfalls blanket KZN, South Africa

September 21 2008 at 10:23AM

Parts of KwaZulu-Natal were transformed into a "winter wonderland" after snowfalls blanketed several areas of the province [of South Africa]. Temperatures plummeted into the low teens, with residents of Kokstad and Giants Castle waking up to 0C.

Durban experienced its coldest September night in recorded history on Friday night. Snowfalls were reported in Kokstad, Matatiele, Underberg, Mooi River, Bulwer, Himeville and Nottingham Road. Several roads in the province were closed and people were advised not to go snow hunting, as they risked becoming stuck in traffic and not being able to keep themselves warm. The road between Harding and Kokstad was closed for most of yesterday, but has since been reopened.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928

Why will Al Gore NOT debate his views on Global Warming?

This is a great article by The Heartland Institute.

Dennis Avery

Chris Horner

Steven Milloy

Lord Christopher Monckton

CHICAGO, IL: In recent months, former vice president Al Gore has become the world’s most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world’s climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced. He is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning.

But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.

Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:
[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.

Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.
Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.

But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.
If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery's challenge.

Dennis Avery can be contacted directly via email at cgfi@hughes.net.

For more information about Lord Monckton’s challenge to Al Gore, go to the Web site of the Center for Environment and Public Policy.

Lord Monckton can be contacted directly via email at monckton@mail.com.

The Heartland Institute is a 23-year-old national nonprofit research organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to public policy problems. For more information, please call Thomas Swiss at 312/377-4000 or contact him by email at tswiss@heartland.org, or visit our Web sites at http://www.heartland.org/ or http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom

Well I guess "Global Warming" is not so global?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home

Climate change we can believe in! Artic Ice grows by 30%!

Arctic Ice Grows, Refuses To Conform With Liberal Meme
By Bryan McAffee

The Register has a great story about the growth of the Arctic Ice this summer. Apparently, despite all computer assisted weather models and Global warming climate change hyperbole, there was an actual net gain in the arctic ice of about 30%:

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”.

Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record….

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years

So, according to the data liberals would have us believe (I mean, the NSIDC is located in Boulder, I’m sure they are not on the take) the increase was only 10%, but according to other data the increase in ice is about 30%.

So, who to believe? That is the problem with the Al Gore crowd and anyone else who believes this hoax, the data is absolutely all over the map on climate change. Computer models predict one thing and something else entirely happens. The whole point of science is to try to make predictions about the natural world. If you predictions never are correct, why even try? Of course, the answer to that is you keep trying to induce more panic, thereby increasing university grants, which spews out more false models, thus perpetuating the cycle.

http://www.rightpundits.com

Man-Made climate change math, 1% equals a consensus!

Scientific consensus on man-made climate change... well that depends on what you mean by consensus.

How many times a day do we read or hear from the “un-biased” media that the case for man-made global warming (caused by our SUV’s and factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere) is closed. As our very own US Senator Dole says in a letter to NCCO2Debate there is a “scientific consensus” on the issue and no further debate or study needs to be done, but that it is time to begin spending millions of our NC tax dollars regulating CO2. This post is to provide another resource to North Carolinian’s that will expose this environmentalist propaganda talking point turned climate change urban legend.

Not surprisingly based off of the actual number of scientists involved with the IPCC, the “scientific consensus” term was NOT even coined by a scientist. The phrase was actually quoted from a science historian in 2004. Like most of you when I hear the phrase scientific consensus I envision 1000’s of peer-reviewed papers, published in reputable scientific journals, by hundred’s of different scientists, at least a hundred pages each, with enough charts and graphs to make your eyes cross, that all come to the same conclusions, independently, using repeatable experimental data. This post, taken from a report by Christopher Walter with the Science and Public Policy Institute, clearly demonstrates that instead, sadly, "consensus" was reached from a one page essay by science historian Naomi Oreskes.

In 2004 Oreskes ran a key word search in the ISI Science Web database (a tool used by scientists to research previously published data in varying scientific fields of study) using “climate change”, or at least that is what her essay stated she did. The results of her key word search were:

“928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,
and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’.”

In her analysis of the 928 abstracts she concluded that, 75% of the 928 abstracts either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view that climate change is indeed man-made….AND that the remaining 25% took NO position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate.

That’s math even I can do.

If 75% of ALL the scientific literature that existed from 1993 to 2003 held a view that climate change is indeed man-made, or caused by man, and the remaining 25% contained not one dissenting opinion, then yes, one would be foolish not to support immediate, drastic counter measures to reduce CO2 emissions! And indeed Oreskes leads us to believe in her essay that none of the 928 abstracts contain any dissenting opinions. She states:

“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This
analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree
with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their
professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have
the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists,
but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

AND thus the “scientific consensus” of man made climate change environmentalist/liberal talking point is born! As the Big Foot urban legend started off with two guys, a camera, and a monkey suit, this urban legend started with a computer, a historian, and a one page essay in a scientific journal.

You would be tempted to assume that Oreske’s one-page essay was peer-reviewed before it could possibly be published in such a prestigious scientific journal as Science. But, as usual, when it comes to man made climate change alarmist claims, to make that assumption would be a very expensive mistake for North Carolina, America, and the World. Why…. because Oreske lied!

Christopher Walter, with the Science and Public Policy Institute states,

“It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice – shared by the editors of Science - in favour of the alarmist position.”

Dr. Benny Peiser conducting true science by attempting to duplicate Oreskes’ “experiment” searched the ISI Science Web database using “climate change” for the same time frame and he simply could not duplicate Oreskes’ results. Walter states,

“Dr.Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, conducted a search of the peer-reviewed literature on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. He found not 928 but more than 12,000 papers mentioning the phrase “climate change". When he pointed this out, the editors of Science were compelled to publish anerratum to the effect that the search term which Oreskes had used was not, as stated in her essay, “climate change” but rather “global climate change”. Accordingly, Oreskes’ essay had covered not the entire corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stateddecade but fewer than one-thirteenth of them."

When Dr. Peiser ran the search “global climate change” which is actually the same search that Oreskes used, he found 1117 documents not 928. But what is more important, when he reviewed the 1117 only 13 draw hard conclusions that climate change is man-made, and/or catastrophic in nature.

That is 1%!

Webster’s online defines consensus as:

“general agreement or the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.”

The only consensus I see in the scientific literature is that man made climate change does not exist.

Please visit http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ and read this article “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over". I strongly encourage all of my fellow North Carolinian’s to forward it on to your elected officials and inform them that there is a 1% consensus that they will be re-elected if they continue to remain silent about this hoax. Also, tell them you want to see this issue debated publicly, with scientists from both points of view, presenting and defending the evidence for man-made climate change before one dollar of our taxes is spent regulating CO2 in our great state.

Al Gore refuses to debate his man made climate change views

The following is a copy of a petition that already has approx 8000 signatures demanding that Al Gore admit that his man made climate change views are faulty since he has continuously refused to debate his views publically.

"To: Al Gore
Mr. Gore, Numerous scientists claim that the global warming experienced in the 20th century has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide, as you claim. Their arguments are compelling, and a debate would allow you to address these issues and prove that your arguments are based on science, rather than politics. On March 14, 2007 Lord Monckton of Brenchley challenged you to debate your position on global warming, but your refusal only strengthens their position. We urge you to debate Lord Monckton of Brenchley, or otherwise admit that the causal link between man and global warming is spurious."

Here is a link to sign the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/agdgw/petition-sign.html

Dr Roy Spencer, former climate change researcher with NASA testifies for the Senate Environment and PublicWorks Committee

Yet another world renowned scientist/meterologist testifies before congress that...


"the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural."


The following link will take you to a transcript of Dr. Spencer's testimony:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/roy_w_spencer_testimoney.pdf

I sent the following letter to my US and State congressional leaders requesting a NC Climate Change Summit

"My name is Neal Thomas and I reside in Shelby, North Carolina. I am sending this letter to all of my elected officials to strongly urge you all to unite together and confront the issue of “man-made” global warming for what it is; a hoax.

I am requesting that my North Carolina and U.S. Congressional leaders call for a Climate Change Summit. It would be composed strictly of scientific experts from both sides of the global warming debate, and would be designed to allow equal time for each panel of experts to publicly present and defend the scientific evidence for and against man-made global warming.

The assertion that there is 100% consensus within the scientific community that global warming is “man-made” is absolutely, positively, and categorically false. The Petition Project has grown considerably since Gore’s movie was released.

“More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.” May 19, 2008, Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily.

A movie soon to be released entitled Not Evil Just Wrong; The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria, is designed as a rebuttal to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The original founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, asserts that Al Gore and all others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud:

“Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose… That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention… as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute, 3/5/2008.

Democrats in congress are working very hard to pass legislation that would as stated in their climate principles letter,

“Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming…”

“Progressive Democrats of America has endorsed a science-based global warming bill now in the House of Representatives, The Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590, Henry Waxman, D-CA-30). Now three House leaders, including Rep. Waxman, are circulating a climate principles letter among their colleagues which clearly defines the goals and elements a final law must contain to be successful. Speaker Pelosi supports the letter, and a large number of signatures from House members will help her to press for the best possible global warming bill.” Progressive Democrats of America, Action Alerts, http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=11569301

And Democrats in congress are not the only concern. Now it would seem the EPA will step in and mandate CO2 regulations single-handedly.

“The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Environmental Protection Agency will release a document later this week that could become “the legal roadmap for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S.” Using the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the EPA claim they have the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a decision would unleash a regulatory Pandora’s Box, vesting the EPA with vast control over the entire economy. Worse yet, when regulating pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is forbidden to take into account the economic costs of their regulations.” Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, June 30th 2008.

Insurance companies are also beginning to cash in on the hysteria:

“Scientists say the jury is still out on whether rising sea temperatures will cause more hurricanes to hit U.S. coastlines. Yet some insurance companies are boosting premiums based on assumptions that they will. Helping to drive these developments is a little-known tool of the insurance world: Computerized catastrophe modeling. Crafted by several independent firms and used by most insurers, so-called cat models rely on complex data to estimate probable losses from hurricanes. But regulators and other critics contend that the latest cat models -- which include assumptions about various climate changes -- are triggering higher insurance rates.” WSJ.com July 1, 2008 HURRICANE WATCH Insurers Criticized For New Rate Models, M.P. MCQUEEN

I believe very strongly in being a good steward of our planet, but if man-made greenhouse gases are NOT causing global warming which many world renowned scientists believe, then it needs to be exposed for the hoax it is. I for one think a Climate Change Summit would be an acceptable expenditure of our tax dollars due to the huge amount of taxes we will face if the EPA is allowed to proceed unchecked. It is time to stand!"

All responses have been posted on the blog towards the bottom. I scanned them in so I apologize if they are a little difficult to read.

I am in the 10th US Congressional district so I sent this letter to Rep. Patrick McHenry. I was somewhat encouraged by Rep. McHenry's response. He in a round-about way admits that there is no "scientific consensus" that climate change is man-made. On the other hand, it is quite obvious to me that this is a form letter response because Rep. McHenry does not even mention or comment at all on my request for the Summit.

Being in NC I sent this letter to Senator's Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr who sent almost identical responses which I will post below. Sen. Dole and Burr also sent form letters, and I wonder if Sen. Dole's letter is pre-2006? Based on the letter the Sen. sent in response to mine, it makes me wonder if she even read mine? How could she possibly believe there is a "scientific consensus" about man made climate change when there are 31,000 US scientists who have gone on the public record to say that it is not? The IPCC claims to have less than 3000 scientists backing up their data. I will admit that before Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick dropped the equivalent of an atom bomb on Mann's "hockey-stick fraud", there may very well have been a scientific consensus. But there certainly is not a consensus now other than within the media, and the IPCC. I plan on engaging Sen. Dole and Burr in more conversation to clarify their opinion's about the 31,000 amoung other things.

I reside in Cleveland county NC so that places me in the 111th district for the House of Representatives, which is Rep. Tim Moore. Unfortunately I have misplaced his response. However his response about man made climate change left no doubt that he believes this issue needs much more debate, and so far he is the only elected official that penned a personal response to my letter. He is in favor of having the issue debated publically. Thank you Rep. Moore for taking the time to read and respond to my letter.

My state senate district is 46 so my state senator is Walter Dalton and he has NOT sent a response to my letter. I plan on sending my original letter to Rep. Debbie Clary and allowing her to comment. I am pretty sure she is running against Sen. Dalton for his seat in the NC Senate.

And lastly I sent this letter to the Governor of North Carolina, Michael Easley. His was by far the poorest of all. He did not comment on my request for a Summit, but from his coldish response I do believe he at least read my letter.

VP of the NC Forestry Association and member of the LEGISLATIVE COMM ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE says "climate change has moved from science to religion"

On July 30th I sent the following e-mail to every member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change:

"A rocket scientist that spent six years "carbon accounting" by building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office now says man-made global warming does not exist

You have received this email from a citizen of North Carolina that would very much like to see man-made climate change debated publicly, by scientists, in terms that average Americans can understand, and because you are listed as being a member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change.

The attached and linked article was written by Dr.David Evans himself and he states two important points:

First, "There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None." Secondly,
"There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts..."
I have attached a Word version of the July 18th, 2008 article, and I have also provided a link:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html

I am determined to see this issue debated in North Carolina and have started a blog in an attempt to give North Carolinian's an opportunity to connect with the evidence, one another, and their legislators about man made climate change. My first goal is to allow officials from North Carolina an opportunity to let the public know which side of the debate they fall on.

After you have had an opportunity to read the article I would appreciate a reply to this message stating your thoughts about Dr Evans assertions. Your comments will be posted to my blog un-altered.

Thank you for your time."

As of Friday Aug 1st Mr. Robert Slocum, Vice President of the North Carolina Forestry Commission, and member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, is the only, of the 34 total members, that have responded to my request. Here are his comments:

"I applaud your objective and wish you the best of luck. Dr. Evans paper is very good and in line with a substantial amount of scientific work that is finally coming to light. Unfortunately, “Climate Change” has moved from science and become its own religion. That makes rational, scientific debate very difficult, if not impossible, in the political arena. Climate change is now the rational for almost every action anyone can think of and the cause of almost every ill.

Bob Slocum"

I cannot stress enough to my fellow North Carolina citizens to contact your legislators and find out where they stand on this debate. The economic future of our state my depend on it. Our schools are crumbling around us and there are elements at work within our states government who are preparing to spend billions of dollars of our tax money to "save the planet" as Nancy Pelosi puts it, FROM A HOAX!

Boy if only we could be so alarmed about the state of our schools we would probably have the smartest school children in the Republic.

Another Rocket Scientist, who spent six years building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office now says no to man made global warming!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html

The Australian

No smoking hot spot

David Evans July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005."

If the EPA gets their way your taxes will skyrocket!

The following was taken directly from the EPA's climate change website:

"Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.

The Advance Notice
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;

How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;

Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,

Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background
In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

How to Comment

Comments should be identified by the following Docket ID Number:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

Comments should be submitted by one of the following method
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

Fax: 202-566-9744

Mail:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.


North Carolina use these links to let your comments be heard.

petition address

If you are interested in making your voice heard sign this petition!

http://www.grassfire.org/106/petition.asp?PID=16196735&NID=1

Great video about the problems with the science of man made global warming by Warren Meyer.

The government of North Carolina is proceeding at break neck speed to spend your tax dollars to combat something that does not exist.

There is one fatal flaw in North Carolina's stance on climate change. ALL of their science is based on "computer climate simulation models" created by a United Nations panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC for short. These computer models have been proven to be fundamentally flawed!

Two North Carolina organizations that every North Carolina citizen should communicate with are 1):the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change (LCGCC for short)

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/DocumentSites/browseDocSite.asp?nID=14

The second is for the North Carolina Climate Change Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG for short.)
http://www.ncclimatechange.us/

The following is a quote taken directly from the CAPAG website today July 17th, 2008:

"There is a growing scientific consensus that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are increasing the temperature and variability of the Earth’s climate. Recognizing the profound implications that global warming and climate variation could have on the economy, environment, and quality of life in North Carolina, the Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG) was established with the aim of developing proposals for dealing with global climate change in North Carolina. Its final report and recommendations were released at a public meeting on October 16, 2007, in Raleigh. CAPAG's efforts complemented those of the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change that the N.C. General Assembly established in 2005. The Commission, which held its first meeting on February 3, 2006, focused mainly on broader issues, such as whether North Carolina should set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, CAPAG’s purpose was to develop recommendations for specific actions to help reduce or prevent climate change. The recommendations included measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering or removing such gases from the atmosphere. The group did not discuss or debate the science of climate change. CAPAG worked closely with the legislative commission, with frequent updates on its progress and recommendations. The two groups also shared some common members. The Division of Air Quality, within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), managed the CAPAG, which had about 40 members representing a broad range of stakeholders from industry, environmental groups, government agencies, academic institutions, agriculture, forestry, coastal interests, real estate, tourism, banking, insurance, and other businesses. CAPAG was assisted by the Center for Climate Strategies (http://www.climatestrategies.us/), a nonprofit organization providing facilitation and technical support. See DENR's Division of Air Quality website (http://www.ncair.org/) for more information about climate change."

If you read between those lines can't you hear your tax dollars being sucked from your paycheck? And they admit that the science was not discussed or debated before they decided to spend your money!

Here is an additional quote from the CAPAG website (7/17/08) that demonstrates clearly that they are basing their existence on the UN IPCC panel:

"There is a growing scientific consensus that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are affecting the Earth's climate. That consensus is represented by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation."
http://www.ncclimatechange.us/background-science.cfm

Two Canadian scientists named Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in 2004 were able to critique the science behind the IPCC report and found fundamental mathmatical flaws within it. The following link is an online article about their findings.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

One of the best summations of this debate is by Warren Meyer entitled:

A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming v1.0 Here is a link to his great resource! http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf

Citizens of North Carolina please contact your elected officials and tell them to stop spending your money on this hoax.

31,000 scientists across the US have signed a petition stating that global warming is NOT anthropologic in nature!

The Petition Project was begun in 1998 and its purpose is stated as the following:

"Purpose of Petition:
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed "consensus" does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse." http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

Of these 31,000, 610 of them are North Carolinian's. Here is a copy of what the petition says:

"Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The following link is a video by Dr. Noah Robinson who is involved with the Petition Project.

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

I would love to hear from my fellow NC citizen's. Let's band together and defeat this hoax for what it is.

It is OK to be a man-made global warming sceptic!

My name is Neal Thomas and I live in Shelby, NC. I would like to start a grassroots effort to accomplish two main goals: 1) to educate all elected officials in our great state that man-made global warming is a HOAX, and 2) to encourage all North Carolinian's to become "activists" in contacting their elected officials and tell them to stop spending ANY tax dollars on anything releated to man-made gloabal warming.

I believe most average people in North Carolina are already beginning to doubt the ever increasing alarmist claims of man-made global warming supportors; yet I do not think that most of us feel the need to become politically active in this debate because it is just a silly debate amoung scientists that has no effect on them. I intend to provide as many examples as I can to demonstrate to my fellow citizen's that if we do not de-rail the man made global warming locomotive that NC legislators have put into motion, $4 a gallon gasoline is only the tip of the iceburg!