AGW Climate Change Dissent Freedom Global Warming Omniclimate Politics Skepticism

A Dangerous Venue For AGW Skeptics?

Please do not show up wearing your Exxon badge!!

A rising tide of lies, ignorance and disinformation on climate change… where is it coming from?
Start: 14 Apr 2010, 6:30 pm


Wednesday 14th April, 6:30pm, location to be confirmed

Speakers including…

David Adam, Environmental Correspondent from the Guardian
Ben Stewart, Greenpeace
George Marshall, COIN – Climate Outreach and Information Network (founder)

plus more to be announced

Who are the “sceptics” or “deniers” , how are they organised, who is paying them? Is it true that theirs is the message that people most want to hear and why? What can we do to fight back? These questions and more… hear some answers and bring your own…

0 replies on “A Dangerous Venue For AGW Skeptics?”

I for one receive not a penny from anybody, but I do know bad science from real science.

There is not a shred of real science which supports the AGW construct. Their assumptions are false, their data corrupt, and their spokespersons liars because they spout the political agenda of the AGW leaders – “yes, master,” glazed eyes.

I think science should be defended and NOT politicized. If you read up on the real science as well as what the IPCC has done to treat junk science as real, you would not be taking this position. Political goals aside, valid science is more valuable to us than any social or political programs.

Here is a short treatment of the real science – I cut out the ways the AGW has it wrong. Seriously think about these aspects of the real world and ask questions.

1) If the heat-trapping gases create a 30 deg C warming of the planet relative to having none of these gases, then CO2, purportedly responsible for 5% of this effect, causes 1.5 deg C of this warmth. We emit about 3% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year. So, we are responsible for 3% of 1.5 degree or 0.045 deg of warming. This is inconsequential.

2) The rate of energy radiated by warm bodies is related to temperature by the temperature to the 4th power. This means that, if the planet warms 1%, it will increase its rate of emissions by 4%. It is clear that this is a powerful effect which fights any run away warming. This is why an iron bar heated by a Bunsen burner eventually reaches a maximum, constant temperature at which it emits energy as fast as it absorbs it.

3) CO2 partitions 50 to 1 between water and air. To double the atmospheric CO2, we would have to produce 50 times as much to concurrently handle the oceans soaking up the CO2. There is not enough available carbon for us to do this – maybe 20%.

4) Henry’s Law describes the solubility of gases in water as it relates to temperature. As water warms gases are less soluble and as water cools they become more soluble. At all time scales examined, atmospheric CO2 ALWAYS lag temperature changes and never the reverse.

5) The IPCC contends that atmospheric CO2 has a half-life of 200 years (half of it turns over in 200 years). Warmist groups (and I think NOAA) have inflated this number to 1000 years. The real half-life from real research has the half-life from 2 to 20 years with a most convincing average of 5–6 years.

6) The IPCC rejected almost all direct chemical CO2 data as they contend that it was too variable, but praised two French papers that used a really bad method. The IPCC claims that indirect data from Antarctic ice core data is much more reliable. Ernst Beck collected and correlated 10s of thousands of direct chemical CO2 data points and showed that CO2 has been much higher (440-550 ppm) than now (385 ppm) during three periods of the last 200 years.

The 1940s CO2 high was right after the 1938 temperature peak, then global temperature dropped while CO2 was high. It’s fairly clear here that CO2 cannot drive the climate.

The world expert on ice cores (Jaworowski) estimates that cores lose 30–50% of their CO2 content during retrieval. Back-calculating CO2 values puts ice core CO2 at concentrations at or well above todays concentrations.

7) The IPPC treats CO2’s heat-trapping effect as linear: 2x CO2 = 2x effect. The effect is actually logarithmic, based on Beer’s Law, such that the 1st 20 ppm CO2 has the greatest effect and each succeeding 20 ppm has a logarithmically smaller effect. CO2 at current concentrations is 90-95% exhausted, maybe causing 0.0045–0.0023 deg C from manmade CO2.

8) The IPCC had a problem: How can such a small effect by CO2 (0.1 deg C) be made a whole lot bigger? They altered one of the thermodynamic factors by 12-fold to produce a 1.2 deg C effect. Then, assuming water vapor to be a positive feedback factor, they project any warming they wanted.

9) Water vapor as part of the water cycle heat engine. It serves the planet to carry enormous amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is lost to space. It is a huge negative feedback mechanism that keeps our climate so very steady.

10) The recent and elegant work of Ferenc Miskolczi (The saturated greenhouse effect theory of Ferenc Miskolczi, presented by Miklós Zágoni, ).
Miskolczi’s theory says is that CO2 and water vapor interact thermodynamically in the atmosphere such that they have a constant ”saturated” effect. The absolute water vapor in the atmosphere goes down as CO2 rises and vice versa. Not only does his theoretical results match the real historical data, but changes in upper atmospheric water vapor have already been detected (by NASA, I believe).

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi
New Developments in the Science of Greenhouse Effect by Ferenc Miskolczi, by Miklos Zagoni

Thus, for all of the noise about CO2, Miskolczi’s work has shown us that CO2 is effectively irrelevant to the climate. It goes in and out of the biosphere and the oceans as temperatures change due to real ocean cycles (PDO, NAO, AO, ENSO) and a number of cyclic solar factors

CO2 is plant food and we need all that we can get. Without it we do not have oxygen. To push for lower CO2 is truly stupid.

Off-topic, I’ve just picked up your comment at
True, the blog is idiotic, but the comments are pure gold. Here is a British Labour Party warmist blog invaded by Steve Mosher and Jeff Id, two arch-conservative American Republicans, heroes of the Climategate saga. The result is Laurel and Hardy at the State Opening of Parliament. Love it. (And I’m a Labour Party supporter, or was).

funny you say that Geoff…I was going to write tonight or tomorrow a blog highlighting how good those comments were.

There must be a proverb, “every beautiful flower still has its roots in somebody else’s dung”

From the EDM ‘………..further believes that unabated coal and domestic flights should be phased out by the end of 2010…’

Could that be read as ‘unabated coal flights’?

Meeting organised by the Campaign against Climate Change, honorary president George Monbiot. Their site has lengthy advice on how to counter sceptical arguments, with advice for ignorant would-be militants on what to say on blogs, e.g. concerning the leaked CRU emails (“Climategate”). No mention however of President Monbiot’s published view that the emails demonstrate that what was going on at CRU was “not science” and that Jones should resign. Instead, there is a lengthy defence of Jones.
Sounds like Monbiot should resign too.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.