jump to navigation

During Cancun COP16 – calls for a return to WWII style rationing November 30, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,

During Cancun COP16 – calls for a return to WWII style rationing

November 29, 2010

Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions.

Read it here



1. roberts - December 1, 2010

What world are these loonies living in.
If AGW is such a threat then how come they have to continually remind us.
The only threat to the civilized world are these self serving, corrupt bureaucrats or whatever they are. they should all be thrown behind bars.

2. Oliver K. Manuel - December 1, 2010


[I am not a climatologist. That is not an impediment to understanding the disgrace to science of data manipulation in the Climategate scandal*.]

Skeptics have fallen into useless arguments about relatively unimportant climate drivers identified by government scientists working for Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC. The debate has become like children arguing about the fate of a twig in a rapidly flowing stream of water.

Trying to predict weather or long-term climate change is like trying to predict the eventual position of such a twig in a rapidly moving stream.

Imagine a group of government scientists and world leaders saying that they can accurately predict the eventual position of a twig in a fast flowing stream without regard to the rate of water output from the spring upstream or the direction of water flow!

Absurd? Yes, indeed.

That is like the government scientist who claimed to have complicated computer models that can predict the eventual position of the twig by the influence of each eddy current, whirlpool and surge acting on the twig.

The zig-zag path of the twig is irregular, changing directions with each surge or eddy current encountered as it twirls downstream. But the eventual fate of the twig depends far more on the direction of the stream’s flow than on detailed information about each whirlpool, eddy current and surge – even if those could be estimated by computer models.

Climate skeptics found errors in “consensus” government estimates of each force, but the more important error is the failure of government-funded “consensus” climatologists to consider the overall direction of stream flow!

It has long been known that the heat source “upstream” that drives the climate of planet Earth – the Sun – is a variable star. However, Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler identified two serious problems [1] in our understanding of the Sun in 1988 that had to be solved [2, 3] before we could finally see which variations in Earth’s climate might be caused by our variable Sun [4-12].

The two problems that Professor Fowler identified in 1988:

“Indeed there are details to be attended to, but they are overshadowed by serious difficulties in the most basic concepts of nuclear astrophysics. On square one, the solar neutrino puzzle is still with us (chapt. 10), indicating that we do not even understand how our own star really works. On square two we still cannot show in the laboratory and in theoretical calculations why the ratio of oxygen to carbon in the sun and similar stars is close to two-to-one (see chapt. 7). We humans are mostly (90%) oxygen and carbon. We understand in a general way the chemistry and biology involved, but we certainly do not understand the nuclear astrophysics which produced the oxygen and carbon in our bodies.”

The two puzzles were solved with nuclear rest mass data that show neutron repulsion generates most of the Sun’s energy [2] and with neutron-capture cross sections that show O/C ~10 inside the Sun, as expected from laboratory and theoretical calculations, and O/C ~ 2 at the top of the Sun ‘s atmosphere as expected from solar mass fractionation [3].

Only after the dense, highly compact nuclear core had been identified inside the layered Sun did it become possible to understand why cyclic changes in solar inertial motion (SIM) are the primary driver of climate change [4-12].

Orbital motion of planets cause the Sun to be jerked, like a yo–yo on a string, about the constantly changing centre-of-mass (barycentre) of the solar system [12].

Thus, differing planetary masses and distances from the center-of-mass of the solar system (the barycenter) cause the barycenter to change position relative to the compact center of the Sun; just as differences in the masses and positions of wet laundry from the center of a spinning washing machine, cause it to be ‘out-of-balance’ by differing amounts [4-12].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


1. W. A. Fowler, “We do not even understand how our own star really works”, in Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) pp. xi-xii. http://www.omatumr.com/Fowler1988/CaldronsCosmos.pdf

2. O. Manuel, E. Miller, and A. Katragada, “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201.

Click to access jfe-neutronrep.pdf

3. O. Manuel, W. A. Myers, Y. Singh and M. Pleess, “The oxygen to carbon ratio in the solar interior”, Journal of Fusion Energy 23 (2005) 55-62.

Click to access Oxygen_to_Carbon_Ratio.pdf

4. J. D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70 (1965) 193-200.

5. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley, “Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion,” Solar Physics 110 (1987) 191-220.

6. O .K. Manuel, B. W. Ninham, and S. E. Friberg, “Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198.

7. Theodor Landscheidt, ”New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming”, Energy & Environment 114 (2003) 327-350.

8. S. Yousef, “80-120 yr long-term solar induced effects on the Earth: Past and predictions,” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31 (2006) 113-122.

9. J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282.

10. W. J. R. Alexander, F. Bailey, D. B. Bredenkamp, A. vander Merwe, and N. Willemse, “Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development,” J. South African Institut. Civil Eng. 49 (2007) 32-44.

11. Richard Mackey, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate,” Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 (2007, Proceedings of the Ninth International Coastal Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia) 955-968.

Click to access ICS176.pdf

12. O. K. Manuel, “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144:

*With a PhD in nuclear chemistry, postdoctoral studies in space physics, and well over 100 peer-reviewed articles published in highly regarded research journals and conference proceedings, Oliver’s research involved measurements of variations in the abundances of stable isotopes in meteorites, the Moon, the Sun, the Earth and other planets with the equipment shown here:


3. John A. Jauregui - January 11, 2011

Facts: Nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and trace gases just 1%. Water vapor is the most significant trace gas and the most significant green house gas (GHG). According to IPCC technical reports carbon dioxide is the least significant trace gas both by volume and by Global Warming Potential (GWP).

Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

Answer: Infinitesimal

Discussion: The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: