2012 U.S. Elections Rigged by Media Blackout of Ron Paul

The 2012 presidential elections of the United States of America rigged by media blackout, manipulation, distortion and censorship of the only legitimate candidate, Ron Paul. The people are left with an illusion of choice between Obama vs. Romney.

Final Analysis: Climate Change – Man-made or not?

Final Analysis: Climate Change – Man-made or not?

(Guest post by Hans Schreuder*)

After studying and analysing climate related issues over the past seven years, here is my final analysis, based on the best scientific practice of test, test and then test again – in real life that is, with empirical data, not via elaborate computer code run through  models of our earth’s situation.

1. Our earth revolves around a star, our Sun, which nullifies the premise that what goes for a star goes for our earth – there is a fundamental difference between a self-illuminating body and one being illuminated. Our earth is made up of two fundamentally opposite hemispheres that can not be averaged to produce a sphere that is bathed in a luke-warm sun, as per the unrealistic K&T energy budget on which so much hype is based. [1, 2] For those wanting a formula for that: 12h Day + 12h Night ≠ 24h Twilight.

2. Carbon dioxide is not a warming gas at all, it is a cooling gas but when you trap such a gas in a container, the container will warm up and do the trapping of the heat, radiated at it off the so-called greenhouse gas, which is desperate to get rid of the heat that has been forced upon it from outside the bottle. If the gas did trap the heat, how can the bottle get warm? Open the bottle and the gas will cool down almost instantly whilst the container will take its time to reach ambient temperature.

In our open-to-space atmosphere, the excellent radiating properties of all so-called greenhouse gases serve to cool the atmosphere, never to warm it. Any and all gases in our atmosphere cool the planet, either by absorbing solar radiation on its way to the surface or by taking energy away from the surface but at no stage can any gas add energy. In reality, it is the oxygen and nitrogen that act as “greenhouse gases” – they retain heat much longer than the gases now labeled such.

A dry desert is always much hotter than a humid zone at the same latitude during the hours of sunshine. Delaying the cooling does not equal warming, as is the case with water vapour. No heat is ever added other than that which was added to the (earth + atmosphere) system via geo-thermal and solar energy. Carbon dioxide does not even delay any cooling, it accelerates it! [3] Sending its own energy back to its source can never make the source produce yet more energy, if it could, engineers would by now have designed machines that produced more energy than the input allowed for. Does a thermos delay the cooling? Yes. Does it make the contents warmer than they ever were? No, never.

So despite all that has been written by scientists who claim to have proof of the effect that humans have on the climate and its changes, such “proof” is probably best illustrated by the disclaimer at the top of an otherwise scientific paper [4]:

The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.

Let me elaborate: there is no empirical evidence mentioned here that could be repeatedly observed and tested by scientists around the world. The only “evidence” is that they “can’t think of anything else”, so it has to be humans and their pesky “greenhouse gases” – all 4% of it at most [5] – an issue that has been dealt with in the best scientific manner possible by many scientists from around the world and proven not to be the cause of any warming; see references [6, 7, 8, 9 and 10] listing hundreds of relevant scientific papers. There are thousands more sites on this issue of course, those mentioned have links to many of them.

The world awaits a debate over the non-warming effect of carbon dioxide and the nonexistence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. A debate over “the degree of warming” is a non-starter, as no additional warming is ever possible.

*Hans Schreuder is a retired analytical chemist, educated in The Netherlands. Postscripts, thanks to Benny Peiser’s CCNet of the Global Warming Policy Foundation [11]:

1. Solar subsidies are a placebo which is giving the general public a sense of security about our energy future and is robbing the motivation of those entrepreneurs that could actually address our energy problems. Subsidies are much worse that just wasteful, they’re diabolical. They lull us into thinking we have almost solved the problem and they hinder us from seeking the real solutions. In the near term, perhaps our bigger concern than climate change is anthropogenic energy policy. –DavidBergeron. [12]

2. The Government’s ideological obsession with wind power is inflicting ever greater damage on Britain, driving up our energy bills and ruining our countryside. Brutalist, expensive and inefficient, wind farms are nothing more than vast monuments to political vanity.

Green politics is predicated on the belief that man-made global warming is destroying the planet. But there is no hard scientific evidence for this thesis. Indeed, climate change has taken place throughout the earth’s history, long before the advent of man or industrialisation. Nor will the construction of wind farms in Britain make the slightest difference to the global output of carbon emissions, given the phenomenal economic growth of the developing world.

But wind power certainly causes destruction at home by ruining our natural heritage. There is a curious paradox at work here. In the name of protecting the environment, the green politicians are inflicting terrible damage on our landscape. Anyone who loves our green and pleasant land should be fighting for the removal of these monstrosities. –Leo McKinstry [13]

References:

[1] http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

[2] http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/19541.html

[3] http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

[4] http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

[5] http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/IPCC_deception.pdf

[6] http://principia-scientific.org

[7] http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com

[8] http://www.tech-know-group.com

[9] http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com

[10] http://www.climatedepot.com

[11] http://thegwpf.org

[12] http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/08/06/paging-diogenes/#more-7824

[13] http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/338258/Leo-McKinstry

The “Greenhouse Effect” and Droughts are Mutually Exclusive

(Guest Post by Carl Brehmer)

The following is an excerpt from a recent radio broadcast:

“Heat waves are getting hotter and longer and the forest fires are getting bigger and more severe and there seems to be little doubt that the warming earth, caused by greenhouse gas pollution primarily from fossil fuel burning, is warming the earth and that extra warmth is making the heat waves worse and its making the wild fires worse and its making droughts that we are experiencing worse.”

Coast to Coast AM, July 26th, 2012 hour 2: Interview with Jonathan Overpeck, Professor, Department of Geosciences and the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The droughts that are occurring this year on the Great Plains are a true calamity, but to blame them on a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect” is improper from a scientific point of view, since the “greenhouse effect” is hypothetical warming said to be caused primarily by water vapor and droughts are caused by a lack of water vapor. Therefore, droughts and the “greenhouse effect” cannot occupy the same space at the same time—one requires the presence of water vapor and the other requires its absence.

I say that the “greenhouse effect” causes “hypothetical” warming because I recently completed a simple scientific study that demonstrates that an increased presence of water vapor is accompanied by a decrease in temperatures, but we will go over those results in a minute.

Let me first say that periodic severe droughts are not unique to the Great Plains as Professor Overpeck himself revealed in a paper that he co-authored in 1998: “Historical documents, tree rings, archaeological remains, lake sediment, and geomorphic data make it clear that the droughts of the twentieth century, including those of the 1930s and 1950s, were eclipsed several times by droughts earlier in the last 2000 years, and as recently as the late sixteenth century. In general, some droughts prior to 1600 appear to be characterized by longer duration (i.e., multidecadal) and greater spatial extent than those of the twentieth century.” Woodhouse, C.A. & Overpeck, J.T., 2000 Years of Drought Variability in the Central United States, 1998 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79: 2693-2714

The subject of this article though is not whether or not the earth is warming or whether or not droughts are getting worse around the world. The subject of this article is whether or not such droughts can be caused by a water vapor mediated “greenhouse effect.” According to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis itself the “greenhouse effect” requires the presence of water vapor to operate. That is, water vapor not only accounts for the majority of the primary “greenhouse warming” in the atmosphere (60-90% depending upon the author) but it also, via “positive water vapor feedback,” is responsible for the much of the hypothetical warming caused by secondary “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide. So, where there is little or no water vapor there can be little or no greenhouse effect. Take, for example the precipitous nighttime cooling seen in a desert mentioned by John Tyndall:
“Whenever the air is dry we are liable to daily extremes of temperature. By day in such places, the sun’s heat reaches the earth unimpeded and renders the maximum high; by night on the other hand the earth’s heat escapes unhindered into space and renders the minimum low. Hence the difference between the maximum and minimum is greatest where the air is driest.
“In the plains of India, on the heights of the Himalaya, in Central Asia, in Australia—wherever drought reigns, we have the heat of day forcibly contrasted with the chill of night. In the Sahara itself, when the sun’s rays cease to impinge on the burning soil the temperature runs rapidly down to freezing, because there is no vapour overhead to check the calorific drain.”

Tyndall, John, On radiation: The “Rede” lecture, delivered in the Senate-house before the University of Cambridge, England, on Tuesday, May 16, 1865
a) Little or no water vapor = little or no greenhouse effect
b) Little or no water vapor = drought

Ergo: droughts cannot possibly be caused by the “greenhouse effect” since the “greenhouse effect” is a hypothetical effect caused primarily by water vapor. Where there is enough water vapor in the air to cause said hypothetical “greenhouse effect” then there will be no drought, because it will be cloudy and rainy instead. Ergo, droughts and the “greenhouse effect” are mutually exclusive. Droughts are, in fact, caused by a “greenhouse gas” deficit, i.e., not enough water vapor in the air!

That having been said, here is the study that I did that demonstrates that the presence of water vapor is associated with cooler temperatures not warmer. I downloaded both the daily mean temperature readings and the daily mean relative humidity readings from the National Weather Service for Prescott, Arizona for the period of June 17th through July 17th of 2012 and separated the days between those that had <30% mean relative humidity and those that had > 30% relative humidity and graphed them against one another along with the concomitant mean temperatures and it produced this graph.

Affect of Humidity on Temp. Prescott, Arizona

In this graph the red bars are from the “arid” days and the blue bars are from the “humid” days. The bars on the left show the mean relative humidity and the bars on the right show the mean temperatures. As you can see on the “humid days” as the mean relative humidity increased by a factor of three (from 20% to 60%) the temperature actually dropped three degrees centigrade.
This demonstrates not only the complete absence of a water vapor mediated “greenhouse effect” it actually demonstrates an “antigreenhouse effect.” That is, as the amount of water vapor increased in the air the mean temperature decreased. Since our bodies are water-cooled humid days may very well feel warmer to us than arid days, but true science is based on empirical measurements rather than on sense perception.

Not being satisfied with just one reading I repeated this study for three other cities in the United States and it produced this graph.

Affect of Humidity on Temp. Various Cities

In this graph the red bars were the mean temperatures on the arid days and the blue bars were the mean temperatures on the humid days. As you can see all four cities—Prescott, Salt Lake, Las Vegas and Denver—became cooler as the humidity increased. Ergo a water vapor mediated “greenhouse effect” cannot possibly cause warming because when and where water vapor is higher the temperatures are cooler.

So again, droughts and the “greenhouse effect” are mutually exclusive since the “greenhouse effect” requires the presence of water vapor to operate and droughts are caused by an absence of ample water vapor. In those climes where there is ample water vapor present in the air there will be no drought, since water vapor eventually condenses into clouds and makes rain. Clouds and rain, in
turn, cool the atmosphere as you can see in the above graphs.

Breaking: Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists

New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers will consider a move for sanctions that should prove fatal to government’s case.

The High Court at Auckland, New Zealand

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are reeling after what may prove a fatally embarrassing admission that it is breaking a solemn undertaking given to parliament. NIWA had assured ministers that it would disclose a third party peer-reviewed report of its science for courtroom verification as part of its defense against a petition in the case of NZ Skeptics-v-NIWA.

NIWA’s decision renders an almighty self-inflicted wound to the government agency’s already dire credibility. But worse, the move will be regarded as contempt of court and thus permits the court to grant the plaintiff’s motions for punitive sanctions, including summary judgment. As such, this would bring a swift victory for skeptics with profound legal ramifications around the world. In the sparsely-measured southern hemisphere the New Zealand climate data is critical to claims about a verified global temperature record.

At a stroke this case may affirm that up to one quarter of our planet’s climate records have been fraudulently audited. As such this provides  compelling legal ammunition to other pending/ongoing lawsuits that have arisen in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal. Immediate ramifications will be felt in Canada where popular skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is defending two vexatious libel suits against IPCC climatologists. Of those cases the one most likely to be impacted is that of Andrew Weaver-v-Tim Ball currently underway in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Weaver was lead author of a chapter on Global Climate Projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . Weaver took exception to Ball’s  widely-published denouncements of cherry-picking models.

Last year NIWA gave an undertaking to the Kiwi Parliament that it would permit external peer-review by scientists from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). This evidence was to be presented to the court to help resolve a drawn out legal battle to prove whether or not NIWA had cooked the country’s climate books. Lawyers for the jubilant skeptics now can motion for an adverse inference against the defendants on the grounds that they intentionally have “spoliated” the evidence (spoliation is the withholding/destroying of evidence).

As with the Kiwi case,  over in Canada Tim Ball is having a hard time getting his court adversaries to be forthcoming in releasing their hidden data and records. As in any common law jurisdiction, when a litigant refuses to comply with the opposing party’s motions for disclosure then spoliation doctrine comes into play. Persistent refusal by any party in a lawsuit to hand over evidence on request renders them liable to severe sanctions. As with his Kiwi counterparts Ball will be hoping to win the adverse inference. If granted in these cases the jury will be directed to rule that the party withholding the evidence has done so “from a consciousness of guilt.” In other words, the juries will be directed to rule that climatologists refused to disclose the evidence because to do so would prove they intentionally falsified the climate records to get a predetermined outcome.

A jubilant Richard Treadgold, one of the skeptics involved in the case writes: ”This boils down to a confession to the Court that NIWA has no evidence to show that the BoM approves of NIWA’s review. NIWA does not even bother to present the ineffectual BoM covering letter at page 15 of the Review, for it expresses no approval of the report – though NIWA claims it does.”

But why is this victory in New Zealand so important in the world context?

Well, alarmists in the UN’s IPCC have touted the NIWA record, known widely as the Seven Station Series (7SS), Eleven Station Series (11SS), and NZTR, as proof of antipodean man-made climate warming. These number sets, along with the discredited Australian (BOM) records, represent the cornerstone of Australasia/South Pacific (Oceania) warming. That’s an area that constitutes two of our planet’s eight terrestrial ecozones; or, one quarter of the world’s ‘official’ climate record. In effect, this is a monumental blow to the legal validity of 25 percent of all the world’s climate records. Richard Treadgold has more of the details in ‘Affidavits are for ever’ (August 1, 2012)

Back Story to Kiwi Skeptic Glory

In August 2010 by deft use of the court system Kiwi skeptics scored their first major victory over NIWA – a pro-green government agency  – when the government abandoned any claim the nation had an “official” climate record.

At the time, Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the skeptics said, “The New Zealand Met Service record shows no warming during the last century, but NIWA has adopted a series of invariably downward adjustments in the period prior to World War 2.” He then explained that by fiddling the old temperatures down NIWA fabricated “a huge bounce-back of over 1°C in the first half of the century.”

As we have seen in most English-speaking nations, an eco- fascist element within government has sought to impose upon their nation a tax regime premised on adjusted (cherry-picked) climate data. In every instance, when challenged under freedom of information laws to justify their numbers government scientists have not complied. Each time suspicion that climate data has been manipulated is confirmed when the evidence is unethically kept locked out of public view. Extraordinarily, on each occasion these “civil servants” insist their fiddled climate numbers are more reliable than all past records and actual thermometer readings that invariably show no evidence whatsoever of any human signal in climate.

In 2009 skeptics of the Climate Conversation Group (CCG) really got the ball rolling when they published their landmark review ‘Are we feeling warmer yet’ to demonstrate tha NIWA had fiddled the raw temperatures in a series of “adjustments” that created a fake warming trend of 1°C. When CCG tried to get NIWA to release the official (taxpayer-funded) data they hit a bureaucratic brick wall.

At the time barrister for CCG, Barry Brill, characterized NIWA’s approach to freedom of information requests as “defensive and obstructive.” Protracted legal wrangling then ensued resulting in NIWA disowning any such “official” climate record insisting the data was unofficial and used only for internal purposes. That’s despite the fact there is an official acronym for it and government literature acknowledges that the IPCC used such data to trumpet its own bogus claims.

But since 1999 NIWA had been putting out a temperature record for NZ whenever it was asked to justify what evidence it had to prove that temperatures in NZ had been rising in accord with claims about man-made global warming.

Of course, when you’re career and political goals depends on creating narrative of warming it doesn’t help your case when skeptics can demonstrate that you’ve dishonestly manufactured a warming trend in your “homogenized” presentation that is a corruption of actual temperatures that prove a cooling trend.

The skeptics took their case to court and the protracted proceedings culminated in a compromise whereby NIWA agreed to allow only scientists from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to “peer-review” their data in secret. CCG agreed to abide by the BOM findings and have them put before the court.

But the courtroom farce deepened last month (July, 2012) when, at the eleventh hour, NIWA desperately opposed the admissibility of the BOM review they had asked for. Lawyers for the plaintiffs (CCG) responded:

“NIWA now goes so far as to claim that climate science exchanges between public agencies (both subject to Freedom of Information statutes) are too secret to be seen by this Court. This claim has no credibility, and I invite the Court to draw an adverse inference from NIWA’s obstructive behaviour. The obvious inference is that the BOM found NIWA’s unprecedented methodology to be fatally flawed. As the defects remain undisclosed, it would be dangerous for this Court to accept NIWA’s unsupported opinions on any of the scientific matters in dispute.”

Not only would BOM not back NIWA in this farcical case but one of the world’s most zealous global warming climatologists, Kevin Trenberth wouldn’t back them either! So now NIWA has got itself into an impossible legal corner where the only likely due process outcome is the award of the adverse inference the skeptic lawyers have motioned for – and as stated above we all know what that means.

For a lay person’s guide to what “adverse inference” means see here.

Updated (August 3, 2012):

Richard Treadgold has come back to point out one or two apparent presumptions in my piece. Treadgold expresses his fears, “We run a distinct risk of contempt of court if we appear to endorse the wild claims about the state of the case. ” However,  Treadgold is incorrect because sub judice restrictions do not apply to public policy civil proceedings where the respondent is a government agency. Moreover,  I have sought no input from Treadgold or anyone involved in the case.

I would like to reiterate that my assessment of the facts is correct and my analysis of the doctrine of spoliation stands. Perhaps the doctrine is not yet fully understood and applied in Auckland as it now is in the US and UK. But the courts in NZ will surely come up to speed on this.

The inescapable facts in this case are that six weeks after CCG’s  petition for judicial review NIWA sent its data to BoM so that scientists from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) would serve as a third party auditor. This was instigated upon the February 2010 direction of NIWA’s minister (the Hon. Dr Wayne Mapp).  Mapp gave undertakings that BoM would independently audit NIWA’s numbers and the confidence levels of the adjustments would be calculated and disclosed.

If Mapp (and NIWA) now reneges on this undertaking then the court cannot make any other finding than NIWA (and Mapp) are withholding the BoM audit from “a consciousness of guilt.” As such, NIWA (under Mapp’s instruction) is perpetrating a willful spoliation after Mapp (and NIWA) have staked their credibility on the BoM review. This goes to the heart of determining whether malfeasance has been committed. The duty of the court is to now punish the spoliator.

Perhaps the spoliation doctrine is slightly more advanced in its application in the U.S. where I have most experience of it. But an international scandal will befall the NZ government if the court does not accept that an adverse inference determination must be the logical outcome of this corrupt government U-turn. I hope Richard Treadgold and his  bold New Zealand skeptic counterparts  seize their opportunity for victory and go all out to compel the court to apply the spoliation doctrine to the fullest extent of the law.