“Climatism!”: A Must-Read Book on Climate Alarmism August 30, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: Climatism, global warming, Steve Goreham
1 comment so far
“Climatism!”: A Must-Read Book on Climate Alarmism
By Roger Helmer, July 30, 2010
I’ve recently reviewed a number of excellent books on aspects of the climate debate. But I want to tell you about the book I’ve just read: “Climatism”.
I was at the Heartland Climate Conference in Chicago in May, when I had the pleasure of meeting Steve Goreham, the author of “Climatism!”. Steve holds an MS from the University of Illinois, and an MBA from the University of Chicago. He has just been appointed Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America (www.climatescienceamerica.org). A few years ago he became interested in the climate debate, and has made an extended study both of the science, and of Climatsm as a social, political and economic phenomenon. The result of his work is this book, one of the most comprehensive yet accessible studies I have seen. While he doesn’t spare the scientific rigour, he writes in a wonderfully accessible way, and if you have any interest in the subject you’ll find it difficult to put down.
Read the rest here
Is ENSO, rather than a ‘Greenhouse Effect’, the origin of ‘Climate Change’? by Erl Happ August 25, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, Erl Happ, global warming
add a comment
Is ENSO, rather than a ‘Greenhouse Effect’, the origin of ‘Climate Change’? by Erl Happ
by Erl Happ
High pressure cells are areas of descending air while ascending air is found in low pressure cells. Air travels from high to low pressure in a circuitous fashion, crossing isobars (lines of equal pressure). When isobars are close together, the wind velocity is greater. Speculatively, the speed and volume of flow depends upon the pressure differential and also the size of the cells involved.
The Trade Winds originate in high pressure cells centred at about 30° of latitude in winter and 50° of latitude in summer. Air flows from these high pressure cells towards low pressure cells at the inter-tropical convergence near the equator. There is a wind with a westerly component that flows towards the poles from these same high pressure cells. High pressure cells are largely cloud free. High pressure cells establish and endure most strongly over cold waters that are free of the diurnal flux in temperature evident over the land. However, a large high also establishes north of the Himalayas, on land, dominating the northern circulation in winter.
The intensity of the wind in the trade wind zone drives wave action that determines the surface area of the ocean and thereby evaporation. Under high and relatively invariable levels of sunlight, the rate of evaporation from tropical waters is the prime factor determining surface temperature. But, the trade wind also drives the flow of the equatorial currents and determines the degree of upwelling of cold waters from below. This cools the eastern margins of the oceans. Cool waters are driven in a westerly direction by the trades.
It is plain therefore that warm tropical waters are associated with slackness in the trade winds. In the Pacific this is the ‘El Nino’ situation. The reverse, ‘La Nina’ is characterized by vigorous trade winds, enhanced surface cooling by evaporation and strongly upwelling cold waters. These phenomena are seen in tropical latitudes in all oceans.
Read the rest here
Closing out dissent August 14, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Bob Carter
1 comment so far
Closing out dissent
by Professor Bob Carter
Quadrant Online, August 1, 2010
The phenomena of disinvitation and the brotherhood of silence
Scientists who venture to make independent statements in public about environmental myths soon come to learn about two post-modern-science tactics used to suppress their views – namely, disinvitation and the application of a brotherhood of silence. How these tactics work is explained in this article.
The modus operandi
A member of the organising committee for one or another conference comes to one of my talks, or chances to meet a friend who has attended. Enthusiasm thereby arises for me to speak at the conference that is being planned. Prompted by the member, the conference committee approves an invitation, which I accept. Later, the Council or governing body of the society in question gets to “rubber stamp” the conference program and someone says: “Bob Carter as a plenary speaker! You must be joking”. The disinvitation follows, sometimes well after the talk has been written and travel booked.
In a variation on this, earlier this year I was invited by our ABC to contribute an opinion piece about climate change to their online blog site, The Drum. The piece was duly written and tendered, only to be declined.
Similarly, strong control has long been exercised by public broadcasters ABC and SBS against the appearance of independent scientists on their TV and radio news and current affairs programs. I first encountered this in 2007, when I participated in a broadcast discussion about Martin Durkin’s epoch-making documentary film, The Great Global Warming Swindle. Before the broadcast I had the astonishing experience of being successively invited, disinvited, prevaricated with and then finally invited to participate again, as competing interests inside the ABC battled, as they obviously saw it, to control the outcome of the panel discussion.
I have generally viewed these and similar experiences over the years as amusing irritations that go with the territory of scientific independence. But the matter starts to become offensive, and indeed sinister, when it transpires that scientists from CSIRO, and other IPCC-linked research groups in Australia, have been behind particular disinvitations; or, even more commonly, have refused to participate in public debate on climate change.
The same self-appointed guardians of the sanctity of IPCC climate propaganda also strive ceaselessly to prevent invitations from being issued in the first place. For example, when it was suggested to a Sydney metropolitan university that I might give a talk on the campus, their Distinguished (sic) Professor of Sustainability responded that:
he would not be interested in allowing anyone to present a point of view which did not support the fact that human-generated carbon dioxide has caused global warming.
Engineers Australia (Sydney)
On July 8th this year, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Electrical & ITE Branch, Engineers Australia Sydney, I delivered a lecture on climate change in Chatswood to an attentive audience of about 55 practicing engineers, retired engineers and engineering students.
EA (Sydney) run a series of about 22 such lectures every year for the continuing professional development of their members. The intent is to impart knowledge to the engineering fraternity on current subjects of interest, and lecturers are generally recognized as leaders in the field of the subject that they present.
When controversial topics are involved, the institute attempts to attract speakers who will illustrate different aspects of the debate, as indeed they did on this occasion. For the lecture that I delivered was intended to be one of a pair, in which the other speaker would explain the reasons behind the federal government’s preference for using United Nations (IPCC) advice as the basis for Australian climate policy.
Significantly, CSIRO were asked, and declined, to provide such a speaker, thereby exemplifying the brotherhood of silence, i.e. the long-held ban that all IPCC-linked research groups strive to inflict upon independent scientists by refusing to debate with them as equals on a public platform. Earlier this year, CSIRO chairperson Megan Clarke boasted that her organisation had 40 persons involved in advising the IPCC, yet not one of them was available to talk to Australia’s major engineering professional institute? Pull the other one, Megan.
Well, if CSIRO is not prepared to explain the basis for government’s science policy then there’s always the universities, so a Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at another Sydney metropolitan university was approached to participate as the second speaker. He too declined on the grounds that the envisaged two-lecture format was “flawed”, adding:
You would not have an “anti-gravity” person debate gravity and since there honestly is no debate in this space in SCIENCE the offer I made a little while ago of offering a full day to detail the science to your members stand(s).
Your society risks falling into the trap of the media in believing there is debate and that is sad, misleading and unfortunate.
This stance was supported by an experienced NSW power engineer who wrote to EA at about the same time to malign my professional standing, and who included, for good measure, a gratuitous remark about the well-regarded London publisher of my recent book on climate change, viz.:
It appears that Bob Carter is representative of the group of the relatively little-published 2% group of scientists who generally are not mainly working in real climate science (Bob Carter is a geologist not a climate scientist, and is published in You-tube and popular magazines, not peer-reviewed journals), who oppose the real climate science consensus. This appears to be correct based on your notice of the meeting and his website. In this case he does not deserve equal time to the 98% of scientists regularly published on climate change in peer-reviewed journals. There is no counter consensus! I question the wisdom of giving this man the Engineers Australia podium.
Furthermore, Stacey International is a publisher of popular works and has no specific scientific credibility.
Read the rest here
Kevin 747 lands climate panel job August 11, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, kevin rudd
Kevin 747 lands climate panel job
Congratulations to former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin “Carbon Bigfoot” Rudd, on landing a job on the United Nations climate change panel.
Now Kevin Rudd can jet around the world, preaching about the dangers of fossil fuels and how climate change is the biggest moral challenge of our time. I hope you will be using a solar powered jet, Kev.
Here in Australia our former Prime Minister is referred to as Kevin 747 and the Prime Tourist. Kevin Rudd spent $100,000 a month on overseas travel in his first six months in office. There are Qantas pilots who rack up fewer air miles!
(Art by Igor Saktor)
CO2 is Not a Pollutant but a Huge Benefactor August 8, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, co2, global warming, ipcc, Joseph D’Aleo
CO2 is Not a Pollutant but a Huge Benefactor
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
ICECAP, Aug 07, 2010
There is a wild debate in the skeptic community on whether CO2 plays a role in climate changes over time and if so how much. I am going to avoid getting embroiled in that discussion because no one knows, including the IPCC, which starts with the basic assumption that it does, that we understand the forcing and proceeds from there. They back into the forcing in their models which are seriously flawed with very poor understanding of the clearly important factors of water in all its forms in our atmosphere and in the role of the sun and oceans. Even with seriously contaminated surface observation data, their models are failing miserably even just a decade or two into the runs.
There was a very similar divisive argument in the meteorological community in early to middle part the last century as Dr James Fleming of Colby College documented in the book “Historical Perspectives on Climate Change”. The pertinent chapter was on the web and can be found here. This was before models and was based on theory as the write-up documents.
As a Synoptic Meteorologist and Climatologist over the years I have let the data do the talking. The data says that CO2 plays little or no role in climate change – which is cyclical and relates far better with the cycles in sun and ocean.
When correlating CO2 with temperature trends in various periods of cyclical warming and cooling the last 110 years we find a negative correlation from the late 1800s to 1917 (-0.35), positive from 1917 to 1940 (+0.43), negative during the WWII and post WWII boom from 1940 to around 1975 (-0.40), positive from 1975 to around 2000 (+0.36) and negative in the short period to 2009 (-0.56).
Read the rest here
Our Climate! THE iPhone App for climate realists August 2, 2010Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Our Climate
Our Climate! THE iPhone App for climate realists
Via JoNova, July 30, 2010
- One of the main screens so you can zero in on the information you need.
Behind the scenes a veritable who’s-who of the skeptical world has been working away on yet another way to reach people, especially young people.
For those of you with iphones, if you want the latest graphs, blog information, or answers to questions at the pub debate, there is an option from the iphone store with dozens of excellent articles of the right size, lots of pictures, graphs, quizes, world-wide polls, and more.
The skeptics community grows stronger through projects like this. Kudos to Lubos, and Willie Soon especially, as well as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Henrik Svensmark, Will Happer, Bob Carter, Craig Idso, Paul Reiter but also folks such as yours truly, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Anthony Watts.
The big credit goes to Paul at Aeris Systems in Perth — it’s been his baby and untold hours of work over more than 6 months.
Read the rest here