Investment and other financial matters

Archive for November, 2010

Greenpeace co-founder speaks out against activist zealot agenda

Greenpeace co-founder speaks out against activist attempts to politicize
green building agenda

May 23, 2008

May 22, 2008, Vancouver – Greenpeace co-founder and former leader Dr.
Patrick Moore spoke out against attempts by activist environmental
groups to politicize the green building agenda.

Addressing members of the National Association of Home Builders at their
recent National Green Building Conference in New Orleans, Moore said,
"Greenpeace is using the US Green Building Council’s LEED green building
standard as a Trojan horse to deliver an activist agenda that is not in
line with science or sustainability."

"Ironically, many of the positions that Greenpeace and other activist
organizations advocate run contrary to a sound green building approach
and will likely do more harm than good," said Moore, Chair and Chief
Scientist at consulting firm Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.

"Greenpeace is opposed to the use of hydro power, nuclear energy, widely
accepted sustainable forestry standards and vinyl products, to name but
a few of the things they are opposed to," said Moore.

"How ironic since nuclear and hydro are among the most sustainable of
energy sources while wood and vinyl are among the most sustainable of
building materials," said Moore.

"These unscientific biases, fostered by activist groups, have found
their way into the LEED standard," said Moore.

"Healthcare is an important field where vinyl materials perform well
because of their low cost and anti-bacterial qualities," said Moore.

"In my opinion, banning vinyl from healthcare-as some activist
organizations would have us do in the new LEED for Healthcare
standard-runs contrary to everything I know about sustainability," said

"A ban on affordable vinyl products might increase healthcare costs at a
time when we can least afford it," said Moore.  "Such a ban might also
have negative implications on hospital hygiene," Moore said.

"We need to be practical and realistic," said Moore.

"There are over six billion people on this planet, all of whom need
food, energy, shelter and materials," said Moore.  "By initiating
campaigns against nuclear and hydro power, wood and vinyl, the
Greenpeace agenda would have us deny people basic needs, and that runs
completely contrary to true sustainability," said Moore.

"One way to ensure LEED and other green building standards are not
unduly influenced by the activist political agenda is to encourage
rigorous competition among the various standards," said Moore.

"No green building standard should have a monopoly on the market," said

"Competition is important to ensuring high quality green building
standards that are based on sound science and focused on
 sustainability," said Moore.

Warmest Regards


".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman’s book

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Re: Celebtonics

On 25 mai, 01:56, don findlay <d…> wrote:

> Flat subduction, the newly emerging celebrity tectonics,
>  ..but how does it drive Plate Tectonics?
> Rubber numbers?  …anyone?

Yes, of course no answer. All the more since the trend is constant in
the same direction.

Either you are mad or all the others are … and it flies back in the
face the easy way the human intellectual programs can be set in
learning institutions ( or so-called)  & then flashed for life. This
explain why sectarian aka religious as well as scientific (or so-
called)  convictions can be implanted in those minds & then whirl
through the rest of biological span as endless mining-data loops full
of cross-referencing & other consensus validated assumptions !
Hence the Humanity is set on rail & is unable to even conceive
something outside that feed-in answers-questions framework !
… and of course and except in a few genial individuals, completely
unable to raise to that level of awareness allowing the whole scheme
to  be understood & debugged.

Observe please a mob of hogs or bullocks feeding in a paddockl &
compare it with Universities Beasts busily humming & babbling in
campus !
Do you note any parallel ?

Jean-Paul Turcaud
Founder of the True Geology

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

Over 31,000 US Scientists Deny Man Made Global Warming

Dennis Avery

May 24, 2008

QUOTE: "The correlation between Earth’s temperatures and CO2 is only at
the "accidental" level-22 percent and declining sharply over the past
decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2

31000 scientists sign Oregon GW Skeptic Petition

In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for
Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition,
on the Institute’s website ( It quickly attracted the
signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in
science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight
for the "all scientists agree" mantra of the man-man Global Warming

Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by
cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his
original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified
scientists.  Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made
warming skeptics with science qualifications.  More than 9,000 hold
scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve
times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific

Last week Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in
DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress
and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.

Robinson’s petition states a truth:  "There is no convincing evidence
that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing
or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the
Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth’s
warming since 1850 if it isn’t CO2?  He points to the sun. Robinson
notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the
Earth’s temperature changes-with 79 percent accuracy-about ten years
before they happen.  The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global
temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000.  The computer models
didn’t foresee it.

The correlation between Earth’s temperatures and CO2 is only at the
"accidental" level-22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade
as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels.
Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth
temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.

The Oregon chemist warns that "no other major scientific problem has
ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming." The UN
hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of
"authors" summarized the discussions into a global action plan.  But the
UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate.
The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit "by the process of elimination"
but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of

The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer
climate models, notes Robinson.  But the computer models keep
forecasting more warming than we get.  In fact, 70 percent of the earth’s
recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity’s
greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date.  The Earth’s net
warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.

"If CO2 isn’t causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will
simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, "The cold spells
and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed,
threaten human lives on the planet."

Warmest Regards


"Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some
intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming
policy." Roger A. Pielke, Professor, Environmental Studies, University
of Colorado

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

Proof That Climate Change Is Driven By Solar Activity And Not By CO2 Emissions

Arguments That Prove Climate Change Is Driven By Solar Activity And Not
By CO2 Emission

Dr. Gerhard Löbert

May 26, 2008

Climate change is a natural phenomenon

Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that explains,
among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the
true cause of the global climate changes.

Climatological facts

As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a
natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with
the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that
have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the
recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.

1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on
glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any
anomalous behaviour. In two-thirds of these 10 000 years, the mean
temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age
the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20
years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!

2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate
warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities
have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150
years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic
manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been
increasing exponentially since the 1950′s. The sea level has been rising
and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850
onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase
of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950′s onwards.

3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is
man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in
which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important
climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of
solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation
intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere. As is shown in
Section II, this phenomenon is generated by the action of galactic
vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun.

4. The extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean
global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of
the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of, which has been
ignored by the mainstream climatologists, leaves little room for a human
influence on climate. This close correlation results from the action of
galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see Section
II). Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years.

5. From the steady decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth that
set in in Dec. 2003, it can reliably be concluded that the mean Earth
temperature will decrease again in 2010 for the duration of three
decades as it did from 1872 to 1913 and from 1942 to 1972.

6. The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature
has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2
emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.

Physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of
the rotational velocity and changes of the mean surface temperature of
the Earth

Despite its great successes, the gravitational theory of the great
physicist Albert Einstein, General Relativity, (which is of a purely
geometric nature and is totally incompatible with the highly successful
quantum theory) must be discarded because this theory is completely
irreconcilable with the extremely large energy density of the vacuum
that has been accurately measured in the Casimir experiment.

Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics
that was developed eight decades after General Relativity, not only
covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen
post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian
standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is
the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by
the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our
galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of
these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through
which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small
changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an
extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.

On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the
thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has
its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar
activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other
planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field
strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity
of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce
condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the
Earth albedo also change.

On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces
parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities.
The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational
velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis
orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all
low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been

Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian
wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes
of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity
of the Earth. (see the figure referred to in Section I.4). Einsteinian
theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical
quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.

While the rotational velocity of the Earth and the thermonuclear energy
conversion process on the Sun react simultaneously to the passage of a
vacuum density wave, a time span of 6 years is needed for the energy to
be transported from the core of the Sun to the Earth’s atmosphere and
for the latter’s reaction time.

As can be seen, super-Einsteinian gravitation reveals the true cause of
climate change.

Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. March 6, 2008.

Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.

Program Manager "CCV, F 104G" (see Internet).

Program Manager "Lampyridae, MRMF" (see Internet)

Warmest Regards


"The correlation between Earth’s temperatures and CO2 is only at the
"accidental" level -22 percent and declining sharply over the past
decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2
 levels." Dr Arthur Robinson, Director, Oregon Institute For Science And

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Even More Climate Change Deniers!!

Letters to the editor

May 23, 2008…

Re: 32,000 deniers, May 17

Important to add Larry Solomon’s list of declarations, petitions and
other documents that debunk the notion of "consensus" in the climate
science community is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.
Created at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New
York City by the International Climate Science Coalition, the
declaration calls on world leaders to "reject the views expressed by the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well
as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth."

All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should "be abandoned forthwith",
declaration signatories conclude.

Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:

- "There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern
industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future
cause catastrophic climate change."

- "Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry
and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development
while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global
climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity
and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate
change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering."

Because of overwhelming public interest in the Manhattan Declaration,
and the fact that everyone, not just scientists, will be detrimentally
affected if governments continue to yield to climate campaigners, we
have opened endorsement up to everyone.

In the past three weeks, over 400 people from all walks of life, experts
and ordinary citizens alike, have joined the original 500 endorsers (150
of whom are experts in the field) to add fuel to the fire rapidly
consuming Gore/Suzuki/UN climate mythology.

Anyone can endorse online by simply visiting

Tom Harris, executive director, International Climate Science Coalition


Warmest Regards


"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (7)

Re: Roger is WRONG

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp…> wrote in message…
Vague statements, unreferenced data, and cherry picking,
all in the same small post.  Are you trying to set some
sort of record for non-science in a post to this newsgroup?
On May 21, 9:32 pm, chemist <tom-bol…> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> It appears that variations in Ocean currents are cooling the earth
> for a lot more than 2 years .

There’s a vague statement if there ever was one.
Show a linear regression, with supporting
confidence computation.

PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2


Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the
founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took
it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface
temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2,
Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one
matched better.

It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2
correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of
determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the
correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The
lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.

Understanding R2 correlation

 R2 Coefficient Match between data trends

1.0 Perfect

.90 Good

.50 Fair

.25 Poor

 0 or negative no match at all

If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands
to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend
of CO2, and thus the R2 correlation between the two trends would be
high. Since NCDC has recently released the new USHCN2 data set for
surface temperatures, which promises improved detection and removal of
false trends introduced by change points in the data, such as station
moves, it seemed like an opportune time to test the correlation.

At the same time,  R2 correlation tests were run on other possible
drivers of climate; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

First lets look at the surface temperature record. Here we see the
familiar plot of temperature over the last century as it has been
plotted by NASA GISS:

The temperature trend is unmistakeably upwards, and the change over the
last century is about +0.8°C.

Now lets look at the familiar carbon dioxide graph, known as the Keeling
Curve, which plots atmospheric CO2 concentration measure at the Mauna
Loa Observatory:

CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Oak Ridge National
Lab) also has a data set for this that includes CO2 data back to the
last century (1895) extracted from ice core samples.  That CO2 data set
was plotted against the new USHCN2 surface temperature data as shown

A comparison of the 11year running mean of the USHCN version 2 annual
mean temperatures with the running mean of CO2 from CDIAC. An r-squared
of 0.44 was found.

The results were striking to say the least. An R2 correlation of only
0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between
the two data sets.

Now lets look at other potential drivers of climate,  TSI and PDO.

Scafetta and West (2007) have suggested that the total solar irradiance
(TSI) is a good proxy for the total solar effect which may be
responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. To test it,
again the same R2 correlation was run on the two data sets.

In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record
is better than with CO2, producing an R2 correlation of 0.57 which is
between fair and good.

Finally. Joe ran the R2 correlation test on PDO, the Pacfic Decadal

Oscillation. He writes:

We know both the Pacific and Atlantic undergo multidecadal cycles the
order of 50 to 70 years. In the Pacific this cycle is called the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation. A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found
from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be
accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas (in
both cases a frequency difference of close to a factor of 2). Since El
Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global
cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in
North America.

This PDO and TSI to surface temperature connection has also been pointed
out in previous post I made here, for former California State
Climatologist, Jim Goodridge. PDO affects the USA more than the Atlantic
cycle (AMO) because we have prevailing westerly wind flow.

Here is how Joe did the data correlation:

Since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their
cold modes cooling, I though the sum of the two may provide a useful
index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and US). I
standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the
USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI.

This was the jackpot correlation with the highest value of r-squared

An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered "good". This indicates
that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied together than
Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2.

But he didn’t stop there. He also looked at the last decade where it has
been commonly opined that the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All
Been In Last 13 Years to see how well the correlation was in the last

Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, we looked at the
correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models
predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.

Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the
last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an
r-squared of 0.02.

According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean
temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that
diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort
of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an R2 correlation
of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years.

As another test, this analysis was also done on Britain’s Hadley Climate
Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John Christy) satellite temperature

To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, we
did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower
tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We found a similar non
existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over

 So with R2 correlations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the
rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either.

Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:

And his conclusion:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated
far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The
correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed
in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline
in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations,
temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.

While this isn’t a "smoking gun" it is as close as anything I’ve seen.
Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a
lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.


US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895 , Joeseph D’Aleo, 2008

Persistence in California Weather Patterns,  Jim Goodridge, 2007

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern
Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600  Scafetta and West,

The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset, National Climatic Data
Center, 2007

Warmest Regards


".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman’s book

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (8)

Panic & Warming Stalled

May 22, 2008…

Tim Blair checks a poll on warming panic and reports:

Nearly two decades of climate change panic and … nothing’s changed.…

Well, apart from Al Gore getting richer and taxpayers poorer

Warmest Regards


"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

The Unholy Alliance That Manufactured The Global Warming Myth

Dr. Tim Ball

May 21, 2008

Myth of human CO2 causing warming or climate change

QUOTE: "As MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC
said, "It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries
from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading
climate scientists.’ "

QUOTE: "Two US authorities, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(NASA GISS) produced different global annual averages for the year 2007.
GISS claimed it was the second warmest year on record while NOAA said it
was the seventh warmest year, both ostensibly using the same data."

In previous parts of this series (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) I’ve shown how
a political agenda took over climate science primarily through the UN
and specifically the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC).  The agenda was spread to the world at the
1992 Rio Conference. Periodic Reports from the IPCC maintained the focus
on CO2 and increased the political pressure. Please understand I am not
claiming a conspiracy, but rather a cabal, which is defined as a secret
political clique pushing a political agenda; in this case, designed by
Maurice Strong.

Although the IPCC was the major vehicle other agencies got caught up
quickly as governments became more involved. Results of the IPCC reports
were skillfully propagandized so the issue took hold with the media and
the public. It was also due to bureaucrats in each country carefully
selected from weather related offices to serve on the IPCC. As MIT
professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, "It is no
small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand
to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’
It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive
of the process." A political bias made a few of them especially
supportive. The pattern of their machinations emerged early and
continues.  A measure of this was how long many of them kept the Hockey
Stick graph on official government web sites.

Contrary to popular belief politicians do listen. The problem is they
usually hear if they think there is a consensus, whether right or wrong,
or if the issue can garner votes.  Both these situations existed in the
claims of global warming. In addition, most politicians don’t understand
climate science and were forced to rely on the bureaucrats.

The most notorious was the Hockey Stick (HS) in the IPCC 2001 Third
Assessment Report (TAR). Despite its destruction by McIntyre and
McKitrick confirmed by the Wegman committee reporting to the National
Academy of Sciences, Michael Mann and his associates continue to claim
their work was legitimate. Its omission from the 2007 IPCC Report told
the real story.

While the Hockey Stick was exposed and rejected it drew attention away
from a more insidious piece of ‘human signal’ evidence in the 2001 IPCC
(TAR). This was the claim by P.D. Jones, Director of the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that the global average
annual temperature increased 0.6°C ± 0.2°C in some 130 years.  It was
claimed the increase was beyond any natural increase with the strong
implication it was caused by humans. The data is simply not adequate to
make this conclusion. The first problem is the huge error factor of ±
0.2°C or 66%, which essentially makes the number meaningless. Imagine a
political poll saying it was accurate plus or minus 33%. Besides, there
are so many problems with the global data many consider it impossible to
calculate the global temperature. Some of the problems explain why.

There are very few records of 130 years, indeed, few over 100 years.

The number of these stations is not representative of the world; they
were even less so as you go back in history. Most stations are still
concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe as the Global
Historical Climate Network shows (see map). This was even truer as you
go back in time. Then, whole continents were excluded or at best
represented by a single station. There are virtually no measurements for
the oceans, the forests, deserts, mountains or Polar Regions.

Most of the older stations are the ones most affected by the Urban Heat
Island Effect. This is an artificial increase in temperatures as a city
expands around a weather station. There is considerable disagreement
over how much adjustment is necessary.

There are serious questions and proven limitations of many of the

Two US authorities, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(NASA GISS) produced different global annual averages for the year 2007.
GISS claimed it was the second warmest year on record while NOAA said it
was the seventh warmest year, both ostensibly using the same data.

In 1999 the US National Research Council Report, expressed serious
concern about the data "Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and
continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence
that can be placed in the research results." In response to the report
Kevin Trenberth said, "It’s very clear we do not have a climate
observing system…This may be a shock to many people who assume that we
do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t." It
has not improved. In fact, there are fewer global weather stations now
than in 1960.

Roger Pielke Sr and Dallas Staley tested the 2007 Report, "To evaluate
the IPCC’s claim to be comprehensive, we cross-compared IPCC WG1
references on near-surface air temperature trends with the peer-reviewed
citations that have been given in Climate Science. We selected only
papers that appeared before about May 2006 so they were readily
available to the IPCC Lead authors."(Author’s note; The IPCC used this
cutoff date argument to ignore research such as the relationship between
sunspots and global temperature. In that case they did it even though
the research was in the literature as early as 1991).

They found, The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report clearly cherrypicked (sic)
information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature
to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of
humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the
public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of
the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends."

Gore’s movie trumpeted that 1998 was the warmest year on record. This is
wrong. An error was found in the NASA GISS data and when corrected made
1934 hottest year on record, not 1998; 1921, became the third hottest
year on record not 2006; three of the five hottest years on record
occurred before 1940; Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to
90 percent of the growth in human produced greenhouse gas emissions
during the last century. If it was a genuine error then somebody should
be fired, if it wasn’t there are more serious implications. Suspicions
are raised by a pattern of ‘adjustments’ that make earlier years cooler
thus making more recent years warmer. The procedures that cause this are
explained in an article titled, "Rewriting History, Time and time

The pattern of adjustments and failure to disclose methods is deeply
disturbing and requires much more investigation. It parallels too
closely what has happened at the IPCC and makes a mockery of their claim
that, "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve
warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature
(since 1850)."

The 66% error factor is sufficient in itself to reject the argument that
Jones’ figure represents an unusual increase. It is definitely
inadequate to serve as the basis for a global climate and energy policy.
But there is a more serious problem.

We can’t reproduce Jones’ results because he refuses to disclose which
stations he used and how the data was adjusted. To a request for
information from Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who
has long studied the global temperature record, Jones wrote, "We have 25
or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available
to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
(Jones’ reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005; P. Jones later
confirmed this to Alex von Storch.)

Jones was not alone in the practice of non-disclosure or denial of
access to climate data. A series of attempts to obtain information from
the University of East Anglia and from the joint enterprise of the
Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit are well documented on the
Blog site Other people involved in the reconstructions have also ignored
requests to post their data and methods, even though much of it is paid
for by taxpayers and is the required practice in all other areas of
scientific research. For example, it appears NASA GISS doesn’t provide
all the computer source code, formulae, or the correction used for the
final temperature data. Scientists must be able to validate the work and
claims of others for science to advance. It is even more important if
your work is the basis for global climate and energy policies. But you
may consider it unnecessary if you claim the science is settled and have
a political rather than a scientific agenda.

Professor Wegman’s Committee for the National Academy of Science
arbitrated the hockey stick debate and identified problems in one
segment of climate science, namely paleoclimate. However his remarks
identified problems that plague all of climate science and especially
the IPCC.

It is

read more »

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (4)

Book: The Four Filters Invention of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger

From Graham and Dodd to Buffett and Munger the world of value
investing is a search for quality bargains. Ever wonder how Warren
Buffett and Charlie Munger "frame" an investment decision? I think you
might like my new small self-published book. My book, "The Four
Filters Invention of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger" examines each
of the basic steps they perform in framing and making an investment
decision. Buffett mentions the Four Filters this way: "Charlie and I
look for companies that have a) a business we understand; b) favorable
long-term economics; c) able and trustworthy management; and d) a
sensible price tag." These Four Filters can enhance the probability of
our investment success.

My book is available at and, it includes a valuation case
example of Kraft, KFT. Here is a 10 min. audio book summary:

Bud Labitan

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Re: Global Warming Derangement: Blot Out The Sun

"ISLAM 666" <Islam666Is…> wrote in message…

> Here’s a real fruit-cake environmentalist calling for pumping sulphur
> into the stratosphere to blot out the sun!  What a winner this guy is!


> Global dimming plan to avert climate change disaster

> May 20, 2008 12:00am

> IN a doomsday scenario straight out of the Matrix trilogy, top
> scientist Tim Flannery has claimed humanity may need to blot out the
> sun to survive global warming.

"top scientist" and "Tim Flannery" are contradictions in terms!

Warmest Regards


: "They don’t tell you, that, in their computer models, it’s assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It’s garbage in,
garbage out. If you don’t program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)