Greenhouse Gas Errors Abound on WUWT Blog

Because of the stringent censorship policy of Anthony Watts his award-winning WUWT science blog is not a place  you will find articles skeptical of the so-called greenhouse gas theory (GHE). In keeping with that ethos Willis Eschenbach’s recent guest article for Watts provides another defense of what critics say is pseudo-science.  Nonetheless, adverse comments there soon began to fly, which was unusual coming from loyal WUWT readers. Below is an edited version of Joe Postma’s impassioned refutation of that Eschenbach  piece. If only Mr. Eschenbach and Mr. Watts would engage Postma and other GHE critics in debate. There is no doubt WUWT readers have a growing appetite for it.

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 11: Quantum Mechanics & The Sheer Stupidity of “GHE Science” on WUWT

Guest post by Astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma

On this fairly recent post at “Watts Up With That”, guest contributor Willis Eschenbach developed an explanation for the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect using steel shells, with one inside the other.  What Willis does is so intellectually offensive, so mentally incompetent, that it beggars the imagination. Willis takes an inner sphere radiating at a certain temperature as a blackbody, and then surrounds the sphere with a metal shell in order to trap the radiation.

…cont….

Now, what does modern physics actually have to say about radiation trapped inside a cavity?  Let’s forget that the rules of arithmetical addition are still waiting to be defined by greenhouse effect advocates in the 21st Century, and let just pretend that the 20′th Century and the rest of mathematical history actually occurred.

The idea that a cold shell outside a warm interior causes the warmer interior to heat up some more by trapping radiation inside has always been and will always be a gross violation of basic thermodynamics; as we will see it is also an embarrassing violation of quantum mechanics and the very origin and well-known history of the idea of a blackbody.

It is also specifically the pseudoscience that has been invented to explain the arbitrary difference between the kinetic temperature of the air near the surface and the equivalent blackbody temperature of the outgoing averaged radiation – an invention based on an arbitrary and physically meaningless comparison, which isn’t necessary, because the bottom of the atmospheric layer is naturally the warmest part of the total average ensemble, and because sunlight heating in day time at the ground surface actually has an average value of +49C on the sunlit hemisphere, and this heat distributes up into the atmosphere, cooling as it goes.  It is this latter fact that the invention of a cold layer heating up an already warmer layer has been meant to replace, in order to create the foundation for CO2 alarm and hence the political and societal goals related to that fraud, and of course this was done with assistance by diluting the true power of incident sunlight to a greater surface area where said sunshine doesn’t actually even exist.  Sunlight does not exist on the surface at night time and therefore all of the pseudoscience related to this proposition and subsequent to it is false.

A cavity which traps radiation does not increase the frequency of the radiation.  It is only with an increase of the frequency spectrum of the radiation by which a radiation spectrum can induce higher temperature, and radiation can not and does not change its own frequency spectrum when trapped in a cavity.  The idea that it does is a plain violation ofthe whole origin of Planck’s Law and the blackbody spectrum, and hence of quantum mechanics.  Radiation trapped inside a cavity, such as between the atmosphere and surface, does not increase the frequency of the radiation spectrum, and hence does not cause a change in temperature – particularly when the actual source of radiation and input heating is an approximately 6500K spectrum, and the cavity radiation is only a 255K spectrum.  The internal cavity radiation of 255K is a result of the heating which initially occurred due to the 6500K spectrum input, and this cavity radiation can not increase its own temperature or its own frequency spectrum past what the 6500K spectrum input already did.  This is just basic thermodynamics.

In IPCC greenhouse physics and in the attendant fraudulent models, the idea that cavity radiation causes an increase in temperature requires that a hotter object emits less radiation and that a colder object emits more, violating Wien’s Law, Plank’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (which are all just Planck’s Law).  The IPCC models stated that a warming planet from greenhouse gases should emit less energy; the data has shown that a warming planet emits more energy.  The mathematics of this invented physics also shows that at zero emission, i.e. perfect internal radiation trapping within the cavity, that at zero emission an object would have infinite temperature.  So, both an object of zero Kelvin and infinite kelvin emit zero energy.  It’s absurd.

Read more here:

BREAKING: BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT ADMITS CLIMATE CHANGE ACT ‘A MISTAKE’

Britain’s deeply unpopular Climate Change Act (2008) may be set for repeal as another politician joins the growing number of MP’s aghast at the damage it is having on the nation’s ailing economy.

Conservative Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell’s mea culpa today (February 25, 2013) shows dignity and acceptance of the weight of evidence conflicting with the already scientifically dubious notion of human-caused global warming. “My biggest regret as an MP is that I failed to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act. It was a mistake. I am sorry,” said Carswell on his blog.

The announcement comes hot on the heels of last week’s surprise admission by Rajendra Pachuari, the UN’s head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Pachauri conceded that we are now into a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, as confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office. Even NASA’s most strident climate doomsayer, Dr. James Hansen concedes there has been “a pause” in any temperature rise.

The 2008 rush to enact the UK’s “carbon tax” is now dismissed by Carswell as “gesture legislation” and like other politicians he admits “this law has turned out to have real consequences.” Like others Carswell has woken up to the stark reality of just how much the UK’s Climate Change Act has pushed up energy prices and is “squeezing households and making economic recovery ever more elusive,” says the MP. Under the Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting CO2 emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020.Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million – that is 1 in 4 households

The rise in dissent in the corridors of power is matched by a new willingness among impartial observers to review the very cornerstone of climate alarmism, the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ which researchers at Principia Scientific International say is also refuted. One of PSI’s leading climatologists, Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Olso recently published a telling study in the respected Global and Planetery Journal that used only approved government-sourced data to prove that temperatures rose before levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Professor Humlum and his team concluded: “Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

Professor Humlum and his 200+ PSI colleagues are now in the vanguard of exposing the flaws in “greenhouse gas” science, once discarded already by mainstream scientists over 50 years ago. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) had, at that time, thrown cold water on the notion that carbon dioxide could do anything to alter our climate. In one of it’s main publications the AMS concluded that idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” [1]

It was political will rather than scientific endeavor that ressurected the discredited ‘theory’ decades later. In the 1980’s the British Government seized on CO2 as a useful political tool to raise tax revenues and invested heavily in the now discredited Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA). It was a keynote speech delivered to the Royal Society by Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1988 that set our modern malaise in motion. Thatcher’s ‘science adviser’ at the time, Christopher Monckton had been most impressed by the CO2-hating science of NASA’s James Hansen that had swayed an impressionable U.S. Congress three months earlier.

Ironically, Carswell is a graduate of the UEA, made infamous by the Climategate scandal of 2009. He is also regarded widely as among the more principled politicians in Westminster hoping to turn the tide on this folly. Carswell was voted in 2009 by ‘Spectator’ readers as ‘Parliamentarian of the Year’ while ‘The Daily Telegraph’ nominated him a ‘Briton of the Year.’ He now takes his place among that fast growing band of dissenting Conservative politicians speaking out about the damage misguided ‘green’ policies have had on our economies.

Meanwhile, down in Australia the UN’s Dr Pachauri has been in Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University. He admitted it was time for open discussion about controversial science and welcomed such “politically incorrect views” and that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

“People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said. The UN’s top climate expert said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena.”

Professor Humlum and his PSI colleagues are now urging other politicians to join Carswell and engage in direct dialogue with eminently qualified dissenting PSI scientists such as Dr. Tim Ball, John Sanderson (immediate past president of the Royal College of Science Association), Professor Humlum and others who have no stake in foisting junk science on hard pressed taxpayers.

[1] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

Outmoded Science Journals Fail Again on Peer Review

Times are moving fast and Science and Nature magazine can’t cope. Caught resting on their laurels these eminent mainstream publications have again been exposed as inept or biased when it comes to peer-reviewing the papers submitted to them.

The latest blow concerns the questionable peer review policies of these “top” journals. These denizens of academic publishing are being pulverized in the blogosphere for their inflexibility and conservatism more in keeping with the bygone era of traditional paper and print publishing. Signaling the revolution this week are astute analysts from various quarters. Leading Aussie science blogger, Jo Nova, reflects the mood in the climate science community lamenting:

“The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.”

Apparently, unwilling or unable to keep pace with the rise of “peer-to-peer” (P2P) Science and Nature typify a fossilized mentality when compared with the innovations now occurring elsewhere in online multi-media publishing. Just as Youtube, file sharing and high-tech cheap multimedia helped trigger a transformation in the music and film market industry, grassroots scientists are now getting in on the act. Exploiting social media in the same way scientists are bypassing the perceived gatekeeping mentality of many of the established top journals and forming new online communities capable of creating their own electronic journals offering real time, open peer review applying rigorous standards that would put many mainstream journals to shame

In climate science so it is in medical research. The New York Times has published an astonishing article that once again indicated peer-to-peer (P2P) is becoming an irresistible force for change.

In ‘Mice Fall Short as Test Subjects for Humans’ Deadly Ills,’ Gina Kolata exposes how a “game changer” 10-year study by Dr. H. Shaw Warren, a sepsis researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, was scorned by the leading science journals. Warren and his colleagues had identified why every one of nearly 150 drugs tested on mice at a huge expense failed on human patients. For a year the researchers tried to get their study published in Science and Nature, hoping to reach a wide audience, but both rejected it. Science resorted to the glib excuse that the journal “accepts only about 7 percent of the nearly 13,000 papers submitted each year.” But why restrict the number of papers published in an era of electronic online publishing where the actual quantity of words published is no longer a cost factor?

The problem probably resides somewhere between gatekeeping and overload in this fast-moving information age. Frankly, Science and Nature run their publications as if the world still lived contentedly in a bygone era of deference to authority where most decisions by academics were taken ponderously and behind closed doors. But times have moved on. These “middlemen” of science have become as redundant as so many record labels in the music industry. Innovators in the sciences – just as in the arts – are beginning to demand immediate universal and low cost access to their work.

Of course, the Internet is more than capable of feeding gigabytes of information to the lustiest of appetites. Just as it is does for entertainment so does the immediacy of the World Wide Web offers probably the best vehicle to earnest raw truth in the sciences. In fact, the writing has been on the wall for the obstructionists for a decade as demonstrated in 2004 in a controversy concerning the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Unethical conduct by journal editors saw apparent collusion between authors and funding companies (and governments) to skew the facts.

As Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews.com noted: “Too many of these journals are masquerading as stewards of good science — they pretend to show articles that are well-researched, that are authored by people who have no financial interest in their publication, and that have been put through a rigorous quality control process known as peer review.”

Adams goes on to expose the problem, “Often, the so-called scientific truth presented by these journals is really just a relative truth that has been invented by a circle of influential doctors, researchers and journal editors who define scientific truth by choosing what to publish (and what to ignore). So, it is a rather obvious case of circular reasoning on their side. In other words, to put it more plainly, it’s true if they say it is, and if they reject a paper, then it’s not true. Scientific fact is whatever they tell you it should be.”

An element of fraud may well be tainting the entire system and stubborn resistance to change merely adds fuel to the fire. This may explain the rapid rise of ‘Retraction Watch,’ an up and coming blog dedicated to highlighting those papers that are being retracted on a weekly basis for scientific misconduct, incompetence or unexplained “error.”

With corruption and poor ethics notoriously blighting so many professions today there is clearly scope for this fast developing new market. Right before our eyes we are witnessing the discredited, old style journals being superseded by cheaper, more accessible new Internet based journals backed (and often staffed) by those scientists disenfranchised from a failing and increasingly irrelevant mainstream.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is one such fledgling science association-cum-journal that has seen rapid growth in recent months. Taking on board innovations in open peer review, as detailed in showpiece article ‘Upstarts Lead Peer-to-Peer Science Online: where next?’, PSI has invested in providing members with a bespoke inhouse open peer review and online publishing operation where the new buzzword is P2P.

In its short life PSI has already acquired 200+ full members, a quarter of whom possess doctorate-level qualifications and a database of more than 1,200 subscribers to its weekly newsletters. A bullish site editorial indicates why:

“Old-style peer review just isn’t up to the job and a new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the degree of misconduct is even worse than previously thought. So PSI has been handed the baton to move online science evaluation further towards full transparency. Grasping P2P with both hands, hundreds of scientists from around the world from diverse specialisms and cultures are coming together to discuss ways towards better testing and evaluation of new scientific and technological ideas. Moreover, P2P is also being shown to enable PSI to uncover misuse of science (and scientists) by governments and corporations. PSI embraces its role as a sentinel for truth and transparency and is proving to be an intellectual safe haven for whistleblowers.”

So, if Science and Nature are to take on their new rivals they may want to start learning that P2P is here to stay and should adapt accordingly.

Exposed: David Suzuki Uses Cult of Celebrity to Procure Young Girls

Emails obtained under freedom of information laws reveal Canada’s most prominent environmentalist, David Suzuki, has more than just a glad eye for schoolgirl Lolitas.

Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise may have opened up a can of worms after appearing on Sun News Network (February 7, 2013) to denounce the mainstream media’s “cone of silence over these revelations about David Suzuki.” New email evidence exposes 76-year-old Suzuki’s sick demands upon the nation’s teachers requiring they ply him with an endless gaggle of impressionable young women to serve him whenever he is guest of honor visiting Canadian schools.

Laframboise describes the story as “an amazing paper trail of emails” (including one dated October 18, 2012) that expose how college teacher Mary Milburn and her Department Head, Jim Anderson, among others, ingratiate themselves with Suzuki’s PA by submitting to Suzuki’s sick requests. Specific demands were that the school surround him only with nubile “young ladies” and “dressed to impress,” “not dressed like butch security guys but dressed ‘nicely.’”

“That is not a request the college should have considered seriously” fumed Laframboise. She characterized this affront as a clear “Feminism 101 issue.” Laframboise lambasted schools across the country that indulge Suzuki in his apparently lascivious taste to have young girls to order, dressed to his taste and at his beck and call.

“It is not appropriate for any man visiting a school to ask for female bodyguards,“ says Laframboise. The investigative journalist emphasized her point in the eight minute news interview by declaring that if the prime minister or any regular guy pulled such a stunt feminists would be up in arms screaming “what rock did you crawl out from under!”

She laments, however, when it comes to a left wing icon  idolized by the north American mainstream media the press  appears to have surrendered it’s conscience to all things “green” and double standards come into play.

Across the pond in Britain this story eerily echoes the recent tragic case of the depraved Jimmy Savile, another media celebrity who duped the press into believing he was also holier-than-thou and thus above suspicion. It turned out that while Savile was being lauded – a media celebrity knighted for his services to charitable causes – he was secretly an opportunistic pedophile raping and abusing children under the noses of their teachers and carers.

The David Suzuki emails provide no hard evidence that Suzuki has molested anyone and certainly no girls have made any allegations against him. But at the very least, impressionable young girls should not be objectified and demeaned to become nothing more than eye candy prancing about in Suzuki’s shameless cattle call.

Thus Laframboise is entirely correct to question where these teachers’ (and media) heads are at if they are failing to apply due diligence to protect children from what may be the grubby paws of yet another deluded egomaniacal celebrity who believes he can do no wrong.

WRONG AND TWISTED AGAIN

World-renowned sea level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner has come out to trash latest alarmist media claims that Bangladesh is facing serious flood risks due to man-made global warming. In particular, Dr. Mörner has denounced environmentalist, Bill McKibben who speaks of “30 million refugees” and Canada’s Sunday edition of the star.com for publishing a misleading article, ‘Bangladesh faces mass migration, loss of land from climate change.’

The story claims villages in much of rural southwest Bangladesh are suffering the ravages of climate change. The author of the piece, Raveena Aulakh, relies heavily on the junk science of Atiq Rahman, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Rahman blames Bangladesh’s woes on human emissions of carbon dioxide and insists raising taxes will stem the rising tides. “All this could happen faster because of lack of reduction of greenhouse gases,” says Rahman. “And even if we stopped now, it would take a lot of time for things to get better.”
But Dr. Mörner, famed for his scientific rebuttals of such claims is having none of it. He has issued a press statement (February 10, 2013) to denounce as bogus the article’s shabby “climate change” link to Cyclone Aila that wrought devastation on the subcontinent in 2009.
Mörner retorted that Cyclone Aila “had nothing to do with any sea level rise. It was just the destruction of one of those events hitting this coast so badly. Unfortunately, this is normal for this part of the world, and has always been so.” The real concern, says the sea level expert, should be the incessant chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms which fuels soil erosion and increases the risk of flooding. As Mörner pointed out during the ‘Sealevelgate’ scandal in 2001, politicized and cherry picked science “leads to confusion over cases such as Bangladesh, whose plight is the exact opposite of the one claimed by environmental lobbyists and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

Nonetheless, star.com writer, Raveena Aulakh sticks rigidly to the IPCC’s doomsaying narrative and cynically promotes the usual tired old claims about melting ice sheets, diminishing glaciers and man-made global warming.
If only Aulakh and other sensationalist publications would introduce a little more of the Mörner balance in their articles for he has already exposed the fraud and misunderstand about the subcontinent in a key article from 2011 in the Spectator. ‘Rising credulity,’ describes how Mörner visited and studied the Sundarban delta area in Bangladesh (pictured) and was able to observe clear evidence of coastal erosion, not sea level rises.

The truth about sea levels are that they have always been fluctuating and always will no matter what governments think they might do to control them. Indeed, there are well-documented and huge variations in sea levels, by as much as two meters, because, as is the way with Nature, they stubbornly refuse to maintain a constant level. Dr. Mörner describes the world’s oceans and seas as more akin to an “agitated bath where the water is slopping back and forth. This is a dynamic process.”
By contrast, independent scientists know full well that Bangladesh is cursed because of rain over the Himalayas, which is unconnected with the sea. “It is also cursed because of the cyclones which push water inland. Again, this has nothing to do with the sea, adds Mörner.

Sensationalist authors such as Atiq Rahman should, says Mörner, first check their facts with the world’s true experts on sea level. They can be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which Mörner is a former president), not with the discredited IPCC.

This and other great science stories can be found at Principia Scientific International.

The Tragic Tautology of the Greenhouse Gas Effect

Carl Brehmer reminds us of a crucial internal conflict within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. So vague and self-contradictory are the myriad explanations given by climatologists of this “theory” that anyone who critically examines it soon understands that it is best explained as a tautology.

In rhetoric ‘tautology’ is defined as using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct. We never have and never will get a detailed scientific explanation of the “greenhouse gas” effect (GHE) because for climatologists to seek one would require them to dissect it, thus exposing the truth;  it hangs on nothing of any substance.

We are never given the “how” for the GHE and yet science is all about how things work. When Principia Scientific International (PSI), comprised of 200 experts in science and engineering, sought clarification from the supporters of the GHE they were either ridiculed or ignored. So with no answers as to the “how” inquiring minds turned to the “why” for the rise of this climate chimera.

In a series of articles we saw that the idea of a GHE driven by carbon dioxide was re-invented in the late 1970’s after being widely accepted in science as refuted before 1950.

The re-invented “theory” gained acceptance during the 1980’s as the field of government-funded climatology grew. Despite inward investment in climate research no rigor was applied to give any standard definition of what the “greenhouse effect” is.

“Analogously but Different”

Incredibly, despite a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded “carbon reduction” industry avidly pursuing control of this alleged climate thermostat there are no agreed equations and no agreed descriptors of its how this “thermostat” actually works. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adds to the confusion by glibly declaring our atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse “but different.”

These handwaving proponents of the hypothesis will always start out by admitting the only meaningful source of heat to the surface of the earth is the sun. But then they will often declare that certain gases then serve to drive “down-welling radiation” (or “back radiation”) from the atmosphere as a secondary heat source.

Please take no one’s word on this. Just do your own Google search; most definitions of the “greenhouse effect” either overtly assert or at least imply that downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere adds additional heat to the ground/ocean.

But nowhere will you be told where the extra heat generated by the atmosphere goes, because all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight.  So, within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis all that “additional” thermal energy that the atmosphere generates disappears as mysteriously as it appeared in the first place (see diagram).

Astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma speaks for most critics of this shape-shifting GHE. Postma points out that the duty of modern empirical science is to seek to identify the physical principles that underlay observed phenomena. He writes:

“By identifying and understanding the underlying principle, we thus understand reality. If we can mathematize the principle and justify it on a-priori mathematical absolutivity, then the phenomenon becomes a scientific Law, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics or Kepler’s Law of Universal Gravitation, or the Laws of Least Action or Least Time. We can also engineer the physical principle and use it to our benefit, to produce products, services, and generally, to create wealth and increase the standard of living of people, etc.

The obvious question: is the underlying principle of the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually defined, anywhere? All I have to tell you, is that “No, it is not.””

A healthy skepticism demands of us that we look again at the above diagram, sold to us as the basic model of the greenhouse gas effect. Imagine what difference the addition or removal of that cyclical flow of phantom internal energy would make on the system as a whole. It makes no difference scientifically at all and we could easily discard it if we wished by applying the accepted principle of ‘Occam’s Razor’ (“plurality should not be posited without necessity”).  But to a charlatan looking to pick your pockets for more tax dollars, it is very necessary being the cleverest and most powerful tautology ever sold.

IT’S OFFICIAL: OBAMA IMPEACHMENT STARTS HERE

U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges presented are detailed and damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as a dictator” to exceed his powers of office to appoint officials behind the back of Congress during a recess period.

In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: “President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”

Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the court’s assessment as “probably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.” White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, “we believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.”  However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place ” a list of charges presented as conclusions” according to Larouche. The court appears to take the view that no such recess was in place. As such, the president was in violation of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution that stipulates that a president cannot make appointments without the consent of the Senate.

The failed Obama gambit had hoped to apply the section of the Constitution that reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.”

Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session. The offenses occurred last year when President Obama opted to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board . He also made Richard Cordray (pictured with Obama) head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination). Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate court case.

Lyndon Larouche has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a “procedural loophole.”  Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obama’s offenses are “far graver” than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal.

Blundering British Met Office Now Forecasts Nation’s ‘Coldest Thaw’

January 2013 has so far proved how incompetent the UK’s £240 million a year government weather forecasting service is when compared to one man: Piers Corbyn of Weatheraction.com. But there is now another winter sting in the tail set to come.

Earlier this week large parts of England and Wales remained battered and bruised from Arctic blasts, travel chaos and knee-deep snowfalls. Then in recent days the Met Office boldly declared, “There are signs that the cold air over Britain will finally be replaced by milder air from the Atlantic as we go through the weekend.” They soon backed that up by  proclaiming, “Freezing weather gradually eases in the UK.”  (23rd January).

But a day later the BBC were spinning a different Met Office tune after a sudden U-turn and an “Amber Warning for snow.” The Daily Express was quick to pinpoint the latest and dramatic MO prediction: “An intense deluge tomorrow will dump up to six inches in parts as temperatures plunge below -20C (-4F) in exposed regions.” Talk about capitulation!

Poor BBC television Weatherman, Peter Gibbs looked baffled and bemused Thursday as he broadcast to the nation rather sheepishly “…plenty more snow still to come…” Gibbs conceded the Arctic conditions were “…not going to give up without a fight.” Nonetheless, Gibbs was still obstinately clinging to the Met Office’s forlorn hope that “…it will turn a lot milder over the weekend.” Fingers and legs being crossed backstage.

But will it? Not according to Corbyn who is once again demonstrating just how big the gap is between the incompetent Met Office (still relying on discredited greenhouse gas climate models) and Weatheraction, who say all talk of weather influenced by humans and carbon dioxide is utter junk science.

Sudden Solar Storm is the Late Game Changer

But time and again, because the Met Office refuses to factor in changes in solar forcing and variances in the moon, their forecasts are embarrassingly shown to be wrong even a mere day or two ahead. Unlike the Met Office Corbyn factors in such space weather and has a peer-reviewed accuracy of 85 percent up to 45 days ahead. “Of course standard meteorology has no comprehension of what we are talking about and as long as it remains wedded to the delusional nonsense of CO2 warmism and ‘weather drives weather’ tenets of computer forecasting they will never learn.”

Instead, Corbyn points the rest of us in the right direction “A look at spaceweather.com confirms the very low levels of activity we predicted for now from over 5 weeks ahead.” Corbyn is adamant the Met Office (MO) and the BBC must admit that solar activity is the decisive driver of weather – especially extreme events and of climate change. Failure to concede this increasingly obvious fact – as demonstrated by Weatheraction’s alternate and superior service – suggests taxpayers are condemned to carry on throwing that £240 million into the trash can each year.

Dismissing the superfast new computer system used by the MO Corbyn laments,” they will never improve but only get wrong answers quicker and mislead the public more often.” Many will recall that only last April the MO was forecasting 2012 to be an especially dry year. But what we saw, instead, was “Britain’s wettest drought.”

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson has conspicuously gone on record several times to admit Corbyn is uncannily good. But WeatherAction is insistent there ought to be many more voices of influence in the corridors of power speaking out on this peculiar science travesty. “Politicians must now get to grips with reality, cast aside the CO2 warmist sect of BBC-MO and the so called ‘Climate-Science’ empire in academia and instead support accountable evidence-based science and policies”

So who is right on this issue? Just contrast and compare the weather forecasts and track for yourselves the winners and losers in this perpetual battle against the elements.

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6

This article summarizes the brilliant essay of Marjorie Mazel Hecht that offers one of the most compelling insights into the back-story of how a clique of U.S. academics sold a Malthusian population control scare story.* Their aim: to use man-made global warming as the front to introduce drastic worldwide population control.

Hecht’s piece, “1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” identifies that the key conspirators of the climate hoax came together to formulate their ideas at a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Influential anthropologist Margaret Mead organized the event. [1] Mead was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1974 but had a shadowy past. Her 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud. Thus Mead was “well qualified” to form a new school of anti-population charlatans under her tenacious and bullying tutelage. Among her team was climate con artist Stephen Schneider, biologist George Woodwell, and President Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren. All were “students” of Malthusian mad man Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[2] 

In a 1974 Science magazine editorial Mead successfully forged a narrative that her Population Conference had settled the issue that population growth was very bad for the environment. From Hecht’s well-crafted article we learn that the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences were all in with Mead from the start. With a growing team Mead had the beating heart of a new “science” (climatology) to back up the scares. The goal was simple: policy-makers would be presented with such compelling “evidence” that they had to act, and fast, on man-made global warming.

All the bright and hopeful “Atoms for Peace” ideas of Franklin Roosevelt and of Dwight Eisenhower for a universal program of cheap, clean nuclear power to raise the living standards of all peoples was swept away. Suddenly “nuclear” became a dirty word. In its place Mead’s 1975 climate conference set a new agenda: world nations were to bow down to a new “Law of the Atmosphere” intended to stunt human scientific advance and industrial wealth creation for the masses.

Mead’s conference spin was that unless all citizens bowed down to these new environmental laws then “the whole planet may become endangered.” Mead proclaimed “I have asked a group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with credibility and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws of the air, or plan for ‘international environmental impact statements.’ “

Working closely with her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), Mead declared they had won over a consensus of scientists. Then a year later Kellogg and Mead published a book selling the idea that each nation ”should control carbon dioxide emissions.” [3]

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider typified this new generation of activist “scientists” when he brazenly told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Schneider was a close friend of The Population Bomb‘s Paul Ehrlich and held a prominent role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). John Holdren, now Obama’s science guru, co-authored several articles and books with Ehrlich. Holdren’s stated goal was reduce the population of the United States from its current 302 million down to only 150 million people.

On Mead’s team was also prominent environmentalist, Dr. James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being. But Lovelock famously jumped ship in an interview with MSNBC in which he admitted he and his colleagues had been “alarmist.”

Kellogg’ and the others ramped up the sense of urgency and pending catastrophe: “To ignore the possibility of such changes is, in effect, a decision not to act.“ Then Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impact of Environmental Change on Human Ecology,” sounded the Chicken Little cry, “The fact that the toxic effects of human activities are spreading worldwide and reducing the structure of the biota is an indication that human activities at present exceed the capacity of the biosphere for repairing itself.”

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part 6

———————————–

[1] Margaret Mead, “World Population: World Responsibility,” Science,Sept. 27, 1974 (editorial), Vol. 185, No. 4157.

[2] The Population Bomb, published in 1968 repeated the discredited argument of the British East India Company’s Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that population increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. Malthus was proved wrong by the development of fertilizers and scientific farming, industrialization, advances in biochemistry.

[3]The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, Margaret Mead, Ph.D. and William W. Kellogg, Ph.D., eds. Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065).

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5

This article contrasts and compares two of the most important peer-reviewed climate studies of their day – one generation apart – to expose bogus greenhouse gas claims. We see how short the time frame was when consensus science switched from declaring the greenhouse gas effect as junk to claiming it as a trigger for an impending climate apocalypse.

We compare Ramanathan and Coakley’s 1978 study,’ Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models’ (hereinafter ‘Ramanathan’) with Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 ‘Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget’ (KT97). [1,2] Each paper has been regarded as a fundamental benchmark mirroring the best consensus science of their day.

According to Google Scholar ‘Ramanathan’ is cited by no less than 164 other climate papers. But just as crucial is that it is relied upon by Kiehl and Trenberth, the authors of our second paper. Today KT97 is as central to alarmist greenhouse gas physics claims as Michael Mann’s ‘hockey’ stick graph is to the historic global warming temperature record.

The most striking obvious feature of ‘Ramanathan’ is that it omits any mention of any carbon dioxide-driven greenhouse gas effect. Yet 20 years on KT97 makes the effect center stage in climate science attribution. This spectacular switch in emphasis begs the question: what great new discoveries caused this paradigm shift in climatology?

First, let’s summarize the key features of ‘Ramanathan.’ This is a gargantuan document (24,165 words) and explains in detail the best understanding of mainstream climate models of the time. But this weighty tome makes just three passing references to CO2. This trace gas is mentioned as being a “coolant” in the atmosphere whereas Manabe (1967) could provide only “approximate” numbers for its effect. Ramanathan make no connection whatsoever between CO2 and the long-discredited GHE. In fact, ‘Ramanathan’ suggests that if any gas drove the supposed greenhouse gas heating effect (GHE) it would be ozone (O3) as per this quote:

“In the troposphere, H2O contributes the most to long-wave cooling and solar heating, while in the stratosphere, CO2 contributes the most to long-wave cooling, and O3 contributes the most to solar heating. “ (Page 476)

While the second paragraph of ‘Section E Models for the Earth’s Climate,’ ‘Ramanathan’ states:

“The atmospheric distribution of H2O [water], clouds, and the surface ice and snow cover (which determines in part the reflectivity of the surface) are strongly coupled to the surface and atmospheric temperatures.”

‘Ramanathan’ also notes that the modelers (crassly) assume a fixed relative rate of humidity with no justification. So the hydrological cycle is made king and CO2 cools. Frankly, there is nothing on offer from ‘Ramanathan’ for the alarmists who want to cut human emissions of carbon dioxide. You may think that the great switch in thinking that followed ‘Ramanathan’ must have been triggered by an important and subsequent scientific discovery or two. But you’d be wrong. There have been none in regards to either the GHE or how CO2 works in the atmosphere. The only obvious change has been in the complexity of the computer models used and the assumptions fed into them.

But KT97, for all its guesses and fudges over the numbers is still cited by no less than 707 climate science authorities plus the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But there is nothing in ‘Ramanathan’ to prompt the authors of KT97 to abandon the accepted and long-held position that there is no CO2-driven ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE).

The literature is quite explicit on the issue. Before 1951 it was widely understood that the GHE hypothesis had been refuted. This is spelled out in no uncertain terms in an important publication by the American Meteorological Society.[3] While, in 1978, Ramanathan’s study, ’Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models’ gives no hint that modern day researchers should be looking at a CO2-driven greenhouse effect as a better explanation of our climate system.

As the title of the 1978 study suggests, convection was a known key climate driver and along with the water cycle it is mentioned repeatedly throughout. But what is never mentioned repeatedly is any GHE or the supposed warming properties of CO2. Indeed, the term ‘greenhouse gas effect’ gets only one passing reference and is associated ozone (O3), not carbon dioxide.

Somehow, somewhere, between 1978 and 1997, when KT97 was first published, the GHE was resuscitated. CO2 suddenly became a key player in the system while it’s role was switched from being a cooling gas to a dangerously warming one!

But there is no citation in KT97 to explain how and when these reversals from ‘Ramanathan’ were made. As such it is hard to fathom why KT97 would incorporate ‘Ramanathan’ with it now being rendered a contradictory (and presumably debunked) reference.

So, with no explanation in KT97 it appears that the long- refuted GHE arbitrarily and capriciously became re-instated while the known cooling characteristics of carbon dioxide were (without explanation) reverse so that it was installed as the presumed cause of heating with a climate-forcing factor of 32 W m-2. Absent any scientific explanation for the switch, the reason must be unscientific, perhaps political.

Isaac Asimov Spills the Greenhouse Beans

KT97 thus rescued the greenhouse gas theory from the trashcan of science where it been cast out many decades earlier as affirmed by the American Meteorological Society (AMS), The AMS affirm that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

So what fundamentally changed? Despite today having 200+ scientists and climate researchers at it’s disposal Principia Scientific International (PSI) has studied this closely and found no reason whatsoever offered by government climatologists for this inexplicable rebirth of the already discarded ‘theory’-  let alone a compelling one.

Eminent Swedish mathematician, Professor Claes Johnson thinks he has a clue. It could reside in a confession by popular science writer, Isaac Asimov, as revealed by this quote from Asimov:

“the most interesting scientific event in 1988 was that everyone started to speak about the “greenhouse effect” just because it was a hot summer, when I had been speaking about it for 20 years.”

Skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is more specific about the “everyone” Asimov was referring to. The ‘hot summer’ reference indicates the finger should point to none other than NASA’s James Hansen who gave his alarmist GHE testimony in front of a sweltering U.S. congressional hearing (Hansen’s cronies had switched off the air conditioning the night before). [4]

Hansen’s theatrics followed the keynote speech about the GHE given to the Royal Academy by British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher weeks earlier. [5] None of these facts seems to have roused the slightest interest in the mainstream media, which swallowed whole the man-made global warming myth from the start.

New Climate, New Terms, Fresh Spin

Indeed, Asimov’s boast did mark a real watershed in the way the science was being manipulated. Manipulation is not too strong a word because events surrounding Hansen’s congressional testimony were carefully staged managed to dupe the politicians and the public.

Within ten years of Hansen’s showpiece performance the publication of KT97 marked the final abandonment of all reference to ‘convection’ as a key climate driver. Hereon in radiation, the GHE and human emissions of the CO2 ‘devil’ would be the only focus. KT97 also gives us a new term: the ‘blanket effect’ – a new analogy to help sell the new ‘science.’ The term supposedly describes how radiation is trapped within the atmosphere by the power of the ‘magic gas’ CO2 to cause additional surface heating. But nowhere in ‘Ramanathan’ was the ‘blanket effect’ term used. And why would it? Pre-1980’s science understood that the only ‘blanket’ helping to retain energy in our atmosphere was the vacuum of space – nature’s perfect insulator. But even today climate scientists ‘forget’ this well-established fact and refer instead to the ‘cold’ of space, which any self-respecting space scientist would scoff at.

Also, scientists knew full well that only latent heat (H2O) traps energy. While carbon dioxide -a gas that emits energy as fast as it absorbs it – was quite correctly considered in ‘Ramanathan’ to be a coolant.

This awful mess in climatology is well summed up by astrophysicist Joe Postma:

“The greenhouse effect is a manufactured fraud. It has no consistent description, it has no mathematical physics which actually describes it, it violates other well-established laws of physics, it doesn’t have a rational basis, and its supporters have proven themselves time and time again to be un-amenable to reason or criticism, and to not have an open mind or scientific and skeptical spirit in its regard; it is defended rather than criticized, reinvented rather than abandoned. It doesn’t follow the basic rules of science, just like climate alarm.”

Earlier we asked what great new discovery caused this dramatic switch back to the greenhouse gas effect, of which mainstream science had already dismissed before the middle of the 20^th century. Frankly, we know of no such discovery to warrant the rescued a hypothesis that was tossed into the science trashcan by Professor R.W. Woods in 1909.

Moreover, the only conspicuous fact we have learned from the ‘laboratory’ of earth’s atmosphere since 1997 is that despite a rise of 38 percent atmospheric CO2 concentrations global temperatures have shown no intention of rising. In the interim between ‘Ramanathan’ and KT97 we have seen how badly KT97 got it wrong. In that 20-year period science clearly went awry. So much so, with around $100 billion spent on climate research in that time it is only fair to conclude we have lived through a wasted era.

So what actually motivated an entire field of science to perform such a U-turn? Perhaps the answer lies in the power of computer modeling and the political paymasters who commissioned those models. Moreover, since AGW promoters claim the science is settled and the consensus is overwhelming, why do they persist in securing more research money, in the order of $2 to 10 billion/year? That money buys a collection of secret government models programmed to factor in an unsubstantiated greenhouse effect that has never been shown to modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere by one iota.

————————-

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, 

Part Five, Part 6

 ————————–

[1] Ramanathan V. & Coakley Jr. J. A.,’Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,’ Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics,. Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1978), accessed online: December 29, 2012.

[2] Kiehl. J. T. & Trenberth K.T., ‘Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget,’ (1997), National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

[3] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.

[4] Hansen, J. E., ‘The Greenhouse Effect: Impacts on Current Global Temperature and Regional Heat Wave,’ (June 23, 1988), Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources.

[5] Thatcher, M., Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988), Public Statement, Speech Archive, Margaret Thatcher Foundation (accessed online: December 3, 2012)