IT IS DEAD

Document Sample
IT IS DEAD Powered By Docstoc
					                    PRESS RELEASE

             IPSWICH, UK                                 21 JANUARY 2008




                   GLOBAL WARMING IS DEAD


                                Whether you know it or not



                                 Whether you like it or not




            IT IS DEAD
                     Just like the parrot – gone, it is no more . . .




                                                                        RIP 21 January 2008

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/dead.pdf
Open Letter to Politicians and Media Moguls.                     Ipswich, UK, 21 January 2008

LS.

RE: EARTH COOLING, NOT WARMING

Despite enjoying a mild winter spell so far and contrary to continued biased media reporting,
our beautiful planet Earth is not melting in the heat, it is cooling, quite rapidly in fact.

Since El Niño of 1998, our planet has been steadily cooling down,
as expected by observing solar activity - the one and only real climate driver.

NASA themselves make statements on this:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm and
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm?list1065474

2007 gets trumpeted as being amongst the 10 warmest in the past 113 years,
but it also happens to be the coldest so far this century - but nobody mentions that?!
And 2008 is predicted to be colder still - despite falling in the warmer band?!
Can you not see the fallacy in the media coverage - only reporting the "warm" bit?!

The graph below shows the unequivocal proof of the cooling, despite all the recent years
being part of the "warmest" on record, which was mostly due to our Sun's radiance.
The cooling is also due to our Sun, as it has become less active than before,
all part of natural, well-understood and well-documented cycles (see NASA links above).

After the current period of cooling, we can expect another period of warming, before a
more drastic and longer-term period of cooling - nothing to do with carbon dioxide or mankind.

Please also note that the data for this graph is based on actual observations,
not computer games played by a privileged few for seriously shady reasons.
Based on data from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm
It is now (Jan.'08) claimed that "2007 was the coldest in this century –
and in many places bitterly cold"
( http://www.lowefo.com/forecast.php?s=Netherlands )

For some more unequivocal proof of the cooling, all based on actual observations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/13012008news.shtml
http://www.iceagenow.com/Snowfall_this_season_could_break_record.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/2007_Other_Parts_of_the_World.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Brrrrrr_Where_did_global_warming_go.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Year_of_Global_Cooling.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_ice_grows_to_record_levels.htm
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Memo_0308.pdf

And if you still cling to the belief that puny man has any influence on our Earth's vast climate
systems, then read this please:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/the-ipccs-cardinal-error.pdf
"The IPCC's cardinal error is in its logically inconsistent and prodigiously exaggerated estimate of the effect of
what is called the "radiative forcing" effect of increases in greenhouse-gas concentration on global temperature.
To put it another way, merely by correcting the IPCC's artfully-concealed cardinal error we achieve the equivalent
of an 80% global cut in carbon emissions overnight. To put it another way still, we can put as much carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere as we like, and it will make very little difference to temperature. Given the calculations I have
outlined here, the flatlining of temperatures in recent years is unsurprising. The true cause of the recent warming
is almost certainly the Sun, which has been more active in the past 70 years than at almost any time in the whole
of the past 11,400 years (Usoskin et al., 2003; Solanki et al., 2005).”

and this: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Memo_0508.pdf
"Climate alarmism collapsed at Bali. There is no possibility that nations of the world will irreversibly commit
themselves to undertake substantial measures that must inevitably damage their economies and hinder their
measures to reduce poverty and increase their future prosperity in a competitive world. There is no way that the
South African authorities will even consider not continuing with the construction of new coal-fired power stations,
or banning the import of cheap motor cars from India. Our GGEs will continue to rise inexorably in the years
ahead.
Climate change science has also suffered irretrievable damage. The rejection of the influence of variations in
solar activity was a serious mistake. There is an abundance of well documented historical evidence stretching
from 150 years ago through to this memo that demonstrates the opposite.
In contrast, there is no evidence of synchronous, sub-continental scale environmental changes that irrefutably
demonstrate that they are caused by human activities.
It is increasingly doubtful whether a meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be in place when the protocol
expires in 2012. It is also difficult to see how the IPCC and the UNFCCC can continue to function effectively in the
years ahead.
There can be no doubt that population growth and increases in prosperity of peoples and nations will cause
further environmental damage and atmospheric pollution. The minimisation of these adverse effects will require
an international cooperative effort from scientists in all disciplines. This is not happening. Rather the opposite.
Think about it and the lack of honesty, transparency and reproducibility of the science that you are practising. It
could save your career."

and this: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/EndersbeeReprint.pdf
"I began by suggesting that I believed that there were very sound scientific reasons for the debate on the causes
of global warming to continue. I think it is highly probable that almost all of the global warming over the past 250
years is due to natural causes, and is not caused by Man. On the other hand there is deadly pollution of the
atmosphere in many parts of the world, and urban heat island effects that aggravate the air pollution in many
world cities. These effects are caused by Man. They are mainly local and regional. This means that the solutions
to these pollution effects are to be found at local and regional levels, and that means that the problems should be
corrected at the source.”

“It is ridiculous to assume that the health problems of smog in India and China have global causes, and
can be solved by carbon trading in the City of London.”
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and it is vital for the continued life of all flora and fauna, including Man. The
continued use of carbon fuels is inevitable. For many poor people in the world, access to carbon fuels offers the
only salvation from famine and death. There is no need to burden electricity generation with the costs of carbon
sequestration, but we can do much more to remove the nasty flue gases.

Our priority should be the reduction and control of atmospheric pollution. The control should be directed to
reducing the emission of dangerous chemicals and particles that are now causing very serious health problems,
and reducing life expectancy of people in most cities of the world. Such atmospheric pollution is also a cause of
local climate problems, including low rainfall.

It is important to separate the causes of global warming from the causes of air pollution. The IPCC has interwoven
pollution and global warming, and that is the prime cause of the log jam that has led to all the arguments. Air
pollution and global warming are scientifically separate matters. I trust this short paper explains why many
scientists are concerned about the IPCC reports, and why the debate should continue."

 and this: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1438
". . . the nearly unanimous agreement that the claim of Global Warming as a legitimate threat to humanity is more
an ideological juggernaut than a proven scientific certainty, fueled predominantly by the politics of fear from the
left, and amply lavished with the continued financial support from unwitting governments and moral support from
the main stream media.

This diverse assembly of Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics (or Holocaust deniers as Ellen Goodman from
the Boston Globe would call them) include experts from the fields of paleontology, chemistry, Chemical
engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Agriculture, Astrophysics, Oceanography, Atmospheric Science, Geology,
Meteorology, and Economics, to name a few. Many of them are also recent converts who once called themselves
staunch believers in A.G.W.

A good number of them are former draft reviewers of the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change report they have now happily disowned as dangerously speculative, as it portends to mandate drastic
policy measures for signatories from world governments in order to stop the impending catastrophe presumably
looming in the horizon.

Their collective body of work on the science of Global Climate consists of thousands of research studies and peer
reviewed papers in myriad reputable scientific publications and academic institutions.

Their consensus is based in the scientifically verifiable notion that – stop the presses – periodic Hemispheric
warming (and cooling) of the earth are natural cyclical phenomena, caused primarily by fluctuations in the sun’s
electro-magnetic radiation, water vapor, and a host of other culprits meaner than the rise in carbon dioxide levels,
which is actually an effect rather than a cause of warming. This natural cycle has taken place - and will continue to
take place - over millennia."

"This means that the net impact that man - in all his industrial fury - has over any significant climate
variations, is no more distinguishable – as a contributing former meteorologist puts it – than a “fart in a
hurricane”.

and this: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/CourtneyStockholmCO2increase.pdf
"It is commonly assumed that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the twentieth
century (approx. 30% rise) is a result of anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the annual pulse of
anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is
causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year. Furthermore, the annual increase to CO2 in
the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Northern Hemisphere
seasonal changes (decrease and increase) each year are approximately an order of magnitude greater than both
the total annual increase and the total annual anthropogenic emission. The above findings cause severe doubt to
any ‘projections’ of future atmospheric CO2 concentration and to any projections of future climate that consider
atmospheric CO2 concentration to be significant."

and this: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf
"Climate research is now big business, paid for overwhelmingly by taxpayers at the direction of committed officials
and politicians. These big businesses need to maintain a sense of world crisis to keep the funds flowing. But there
is no consensus on the science of global warming – there is widespread dispute which is now leading to
international and outspoken opposition. Before we embark on a fundamental shift in economic priorities, destroy
huge quantities of existing capital and skills, and impose very large costs on consumers or taxpayers, we need to
be very sure that the basis of our argument is sound. We need to be CERTAIN that man-made CO2 is the cause
of a problem, and CERTAIN that curbing man-made CO2 emissions will produce beneficial results.
On the one hand, the Alarmist Camp is dominated by paid academics and officials appointed by governments,
often on the basis of their beliefs.
The IPCC report is controlled by a few whose whole reputation and future is tied to proving that global warming is
caused by human activities. Their case rests more on models, forecasts and scenarios than on science and
evidence. They are strongly supported by many other activist groups with other agendas, or vested interests in
the result. On the other hand there is an ever growing band of independent scientists all over the world who
believe that the evidence strongly favours the view that man’s activities are a minute factor in determining global
temperature."
"When these realities start to bite, and when the science of global warming collapses in the next cool era, there
will be a huge political backlash against those Pied Pipers who led us to the carbon cemetery. The value of
carbon credits will disappear quicker than CO2 in the wind, the Australian Greenhouse Office will be closed and
many carbon traders, bankers, lawyers, regulators, academics, journalists and politicians will be looking for a new
line of work."
"It is the utmost human arrogance to think that man can control global temperature by
trying to manipulate the amount of his emissions of carbon dioxide entering the
atmosphere."

and this: http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20080109/Opinion/974957979
"It is becoming increasingly obvious that the global warming panic has little to do with temperature change and
everything to do with man's control of other men with climate as the instrument." Ed Iverson.

and this: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
- "There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher
temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some
sort of planetary thermostat."
- "Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort
from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems."

and this: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V11/N2/EDIT.jsp
"Consequently, knowing that including the aerial fertilization and anti-transpiration effects of the expected rise in
the air's CO2 content in the group of climate models studied by Mahowald totally overpowered the predicted
climatic effects of the increase in atmospheric CO2 on the area of the world's deserts, one can begin to
understand how the proper inclusion of the many other biophysical effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment might
nullify even the basic climatic effects that are currently predicted by state-of-the-art climate models."

and this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/484868.stm
"Ignore Global Warming. Instead, remember that humans have survived climate change for thousands of years,
not by playing God with one or two politically selected factors, but by adapting to the new conditions, whether hot,
cold, dry or wet. And, moreover, what about the opportunities global warming presents - far better than cooling
any day!" Professor Philip Stott, University of London

and then, after informing yourselves thus, be brave: STOP THE AGW/ACC MADNESS, PLEASE!

The science that AGW is based on has not got one leg left to stand on. To change the name from AGW to
ACC is a farce. Climate change is ever ongoing, way beyond human control and a necessity for life.

THE WHOLE WORLD WILL REJOICE WITH YOU, OUR LEADERS, IF YOU SHOW CLARITY OF
THOUGHT INSTEAD OF LAME-DUCK KOWTOWING TO UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS FOR
SERIOUSLY DUBIOUS REASONS. COME ON!

We know what you are up to: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/scam_truth.html

Warm regards and available for debate if you are,

Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
Analytical Chemist
mMensa
www.ips-pix.biz
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
LATEST NEWS:
http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=3080http://icecap.us/images/uploads/IPCC_VERIF.jpg

Graph compares various forecasts with actual observations.
Even the UK Met Office draws a gentle downward trend - oh how the truth hurts!




All of a sudden, satellite data are seriously inconvenient, aren't they?!
If the lines of observed temperatures had been pointing ever upward, can you just imagine
the outcry??!! Now, instead, the downward trend is downplayed and all the excuses
in the world are put forward as to why "we" should not read too much into short-term trends?!

Oh really? Get a life and face the truth:

"MAN HAS NO INFLUENCE OVER EARTH'S CLIMATE - NONE. PERIOD."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags: DEAD
Stats:
views:59
posted:3/10/2010
language:English
pages:6
Description: IT IS DEAD